The Global Energy Crisis and its Role in the Pending Collapse of the Global Economy


When my talk to the Royal Society of Chemists was first arranged this summer, oil cost over $130 per barrel, and we wondered where the price would be in October. Since then much has happened. The credit expansion bubble was pricked in part by inflation stemming from high energy prices, and the global banking system is teetering on the brink of collapse, reprieved only by the spread of social ownership throughout the OECD.


National governments and their agencies still seem to be sublimely ignorant of the causes of this year's energy crisis, and there is little sign of action being taken to mitigate the problems that underlay it. Unless these issues are addressed, the energy crisis will shortly re-emerge to dominate events. In fact, this past week, a cold snap in the UK and Europe sent day ahead natural gas prices up by 50% in a day, and these are still up 65% compared with a year ago.

I have been deliberately controversial in the subjects covered in this post because I believe it is high time we had a decent debate about certain aspects of energy policy that we have tended to skirt around for too long. In particular, it is my opinion that UK and EU energy policies that are focussed upon CO2 emissions instead of energy efficiency are dragging us along the path towards Olduvai at an unnecessarily alarming rate.

This is a post in pictures. Each slide is numbered below left. If you wish to leave a comment then please refer to the slide numbers. Click on slides for a larger image. I have added notes to clarify certain points.

Should your organisation wish to have this presentation made in-house, then please get in touch using the information at this link. In my not so humble opinion, all UK government organisations, politicians, civil servants, large corporations and any finance companies and banks that survive the rout should be made aware of the issues presented here.



Slide 2
Rising fuel, energy and food bills have eroded the spending power of lower income groups causing difficulties in servicing debt and reducing discretionary spending. This is the needle that has pricked the credit expansion and housing bubble. These bubbles would no doubt have burst in any case, but at some later date. Borrowing even more is no longer an option to sustain this group. The reduction in discretionary spending power will hit the consume more economies of the OECD.



Slide 3
Whist the pressure on oil supplies has been alleviated for the time being, the underlying causes remain, and high oil prices will return should the world economy survive the current turmoil and begin to grow again. It is therefore worthwhile reminding ourselves what the underlying causes of the recent oil price were.

High energy prices will be an essential part of building a bridge to a sustainable future, needed to provide investment in new fossil fuel resources and alternative energy. National governments need to accept that the prosperity brought by free flowing energy from the heritage supergiant oil and gas assets is now gone, and we face a future where a greater proportion of incomes will be used on energy for survival purposes.



Slide 4
One of the most significant events leading to the rise in oil price was global oil production spare capacity falling to near zero in 2004.



Slide 5
Prior to 2004, a rise in demand could be met by OPEC bringing on spare capacity (opening the taps), but since then demand growth could only be met by bringing on line new capacity--that means discovering and building out new fields--that involves drilling wells, building oil processing plants and pipelines. This is time consuming and expensive in terms of capital and energy used. This is also dependent upon oil companies discovering new oil fields to develop, which they have not been very good at for decades.



Slide 6
Production decline is a natural phenomenon whereby once a peak in oil production is achieved, it declines relentlessly as the result of the expenditure of natural reservoir energy, the proportion of water to oil being produced increasing with time, and the oil reserves being used up.

Decline is very difficult to reverse once it sets in. In the UK Forties Field, Apache Corporation managed to arrest decline late in field life through a massive investment in drilling new wells. The tail on Forties production may be extended for many years, but production will never rise to the heights achieved during the early years when the field was brimming with oil and charged with reservoir energy.



Slide 7
CERA conducted an important study attempting to estimate the global average decline rate in 2007 and proposed a number of 4.5%. This is a composite figure based on decline in individual fields much higher than this combined with the figure for new fields that are undergoing production build up where production is still rising and not falling (Dr Peter Jackson personal communication).

The world currently produces around 85 million barrels of oi per day (mmbpd). Applying the 4.5% decline rate to this figure shows that 3.8 mmbpd new oil production capacity needs to be added every year just to compensate for decline and maintain current production levels. Should production ever rise to 100 mmbpd then 4.5 mmbpd new capacity would be required every year, and this needs to be built out of ever degrading quality of oil field reservoirs.



Slide 8
The energy cost of producing energy is rising all the time. This will be discussed at length later on. What this means is that a growing slice of Global oil production is simply being used to produce more oil.

A growing percentage of liquids produced are poor cousins to crude oil, such as natural gas liquids and ethanol, whose energy content per barrel is much lower.



Slide 9
Many oil exporting countries are experiencing rapid economic growth, resulting in their internal energy consumption growing and consuming an ever larger percentage of oil exports upon which the OECD depends. Some exporting countries may also be experiencing production decline, such as Indonesia, Norway and Mexico. In Indonesia's case, these processes combined have consumed all oil exports. Indonesia represents the typical export land model (ELM) much promoted by Jeffrey Brown.

Indonesia has turned to oil palm to bolster dwindling supplies of crude oil resulting in massive devastation of rain forest. Obsession with global warming and CO2 emissions, which are discussed below, enables Indoensia to present this environmental genocide in the rose tinted light of global environmental protection. This lie may be repeated by corporations wishing to project green credentials. Sadly, gullible and ignorant politicians and media have bought into this bio-fuels fantasy.

Basket Case UK

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown may be trying to lead the Global economy away from collapse whilst at the same time leading the UK economy off the edge of an energy cliff.



Slide 10
UK oil production peaked in 1999 and since then it has been declining at a rate of approximately 9% per annum and will continue to do so. Prior to 2006, the UK had an oil surplus that was exported, but since then the UK has been importing oil with devastating effect upon the trade balance (see below).



Slide 11
The situation with natural gas is equally grim. We will soon be importing gas the year round. The model forecast is flawed since it seems increasingly unlikely that demand will grow in the face of high natural gas prices.

The UK has invested heavily in gas import infrastructure - pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals, but has failed to secure supply contracts to fill this capacity. It seems quite likely that the gas imports shown will never materialise owing to a shortage of gas. As a result, UK gas and electricity supplies might fail.

One aspect of this forecast model is that it shows gas imports rising during the summer months to fill storage for use in winter time. It seems likely that summer - winter price differentials will be eroded as a result of this.



Slide 12
In recent years the UK has run a trade surplus in oil & gas and financial services and a deficit in manufactured goods and services. The oil & gas surplus has now turned to deficit and will drag the trade balance deeper into the red at an alarming rate. The chart is based on government figures.



Slide 13
By 2013, the cumulative trade deficit for oil and gas alone may amount to $8000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. It seems inconceivable that this may be allowed to happen, and measures must be taken to reduce our consumption of oil and gas. See next slide.



Slide 14
The degree of failure in UK energy policy is extraordinary. It is misguided to believe that the market alone will deliver a sensible and secure mix of energy supplies and transportation. This requires a strategic framework within which the market may operate. It is also extraordinarily naive to believe that market forces will deliver low prices in a resource constrained environment, and this is one reason why the UK will pay very high spot prices for gas whilst the rest of Europe will pay lower contract rates negotiated many years ago.

The UK has just created a ministerial position for Energy and Climate Change when they should have created a position for energy and transport. And despite the slump in car sales and increase in airline bankruptcies, the government continues to support road and air transport ahead of collective electrified rail and light rail.

There is much rhetoric about energy efficiency whilst the government puts money into energy wasting schemes such as bio-fuels, CCS and hydrogen (see below).

Climate Change and Energy Policy



Slide 15
The view presented by the IPCC and other organisations is that the rise in global average temperatures observed from 1980 to 1998 is largely caused by anthropogenic causes of green house gas (GHG) emissions and surface albedo changes caused by changing land use and loss of surface ice. I do not agree with this position. I do believe that accumulation of GHGs has contributed to the observed rise in temperatures, but also believe that natural processes have made a very significant contribution. In particular, the Sun was hyper active in the latter decades of the 20th Century and this has likely contributed to the observed warming. Furthermore, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that moderates the ENSO cycle was set in warm mode. The geomagnetic activity of the Sun has since become much less active and the PDO has likely switched to the cool position. I suspect that these events plus others are responsible for the cooling trend observed since 1998 that is showing signs of intensifying.

I hasten to add that I share concern about the alarming loss of Arctic Sea Ice mass and area since 1998. The pattern of ice loss is consistent with anomalous warm water flowing in through the Bering straights, and it seems that the super el Nino event of 1998 was the trigger for this process. I draw considerable comfort from the fact that Arctic Sea ice area showed significant recovery this year and at time of writing the global sea ice anomaly stands at -1 million square kms - well within the range of historic values.

The main reason for raising the issue of climate change is my belief that the remedies for this perceived problem being pursued by UK and EU parliaments may be utterly devastating for the European population. This is especially the case if we end up in a position where the climate cools even further, and we are wasting large quantities of imported energy dealing with CO2 instead of heating and feeding the elderly and poor.



Slide 16
OECD governments have grown obsessive about climate change and have allowed CO2 reduction polices to dominate their energy policies. The IPCC summary report presents the risks associated with climate change in black and white terms when, as indicated above, there are ample reasons to doubt the solidity of many of their findings.

In terms of risk management I will argue strongly that energy policies should take fully into account the risks associated with energy decline in addition to the perceived risks of climate change.

European governments should consider what would happen to their populations should we return to the conditions of The Little Ice Age in the decades that lie ahead. A scenario where we are wasting vast quantities of imported energy dealing with CO2 whilst our populations starve and freeze to death is in my opinion a realistic prospect in the decades that lie ahead, if not sooner.



Slide 17
It is depressing for me to know that UK and EU parliaments are pouring millions into bio fuels, CCS and hydrogen technologies. It seems that governments have been persuaded by pressure groups with commercial interests that these activities will create employment and wealth. The same may be said for carbon trading schemes.

The financial, intellectual and energy capital spent on these schemes that will produce nothing worthwhile for humanity would be much better spent on viable energy production, energy efficiency and electric transportation schemes at this point in time.

Energy Efficiency

I will make a plea that energy efficiency should become the corner stone of all OECD energy policy. This must be at both energy consumption and energy production stages.



Slide 18

Too frequently, governments and individuals think only about energy efficiency when they are considering consumption. There is no need to go over this well trodden ground. However, the efficiency of energy production which is equally if not more important is normally ignored.



Slide 19
The efficiency of energy production is measured by Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI). The chart shows the distribution of energy used to produce energy (red) and energy available for society (blue) for different values of ERoEI. If all the energy produced is used to produce more energy then the ERoEI = 1 and there is no net energy available to power society - doctors, teachers, soldiers, children, elderly, holidays and food.

The legacy deposits of oil, gas and coal have likely had ERoEI values >100 and thus in the past we have not had to worry about ERoEI. However, now that these deposits are being depleted and must be replaced by new deposits or alternative energy sources it is essential that these new sources have ERoEI sufficiently high to power society. In terms of ERoEI, wind power is a useful energy source. Synthetic fuel from tar sands scrape by whilst temperate latitude ethanol is not a viable source of energy. CCS and Hydrogen should not really appear on this chart since neither produce any energy but actually consume large amounts of energy. It is extraordinary that when confronted with energy decline, our national governments have made so many bad choices that will lead society off the energy cliff if these misguided policies are not abandoned.

Olduvai Theory



Slide 20
The Olduvai Theory, proposed by Richard Duncan, integrates decline in oil, gas and coal production with population growth to provide a bleak picture of the per capita energy availability to Mankind. Around 2012, Duncan forecasts that per capita energy production falls off a cliff edge, and this will lead to the demise of Industrial Civilisation.



Slide 21
Luis de Sousa and I decided to check Duncan's theory using more up to date reports on fossil fuel reserves and production. Our findings were equally bleak as Duncan's.



Slide 22
Luis and I looked at what needed to be done to mitigate for the effects of fossil fuel decline. The largest mitigating factor is energy efficiency, but this alone is unlikely to solve the problem. Expansion of alternative energy sources on a truly massive scale will also be required. It is possible to use a combination of new energy sources, some not shown here, but they must have high ERoEI.

It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy contained in crude oil; the scale of new infrastructure required to replace it is truly massive. There are serious doubts that Mankind can rise this challenge since energy decline is likely to bring more economic chaos and social disintegration. New infrastructure will require large amounts of dwindling energy to construct.



Slide 23



Slide 24
Historically there has been a clear correlation between GDP and fossil fuel consumption. When fossil fuels start to decline, it is likely so will GDP and this will likely collapse the global economy. We are in the early stages of this process.



Slide 25
There are three possible outcomes for the world from this point. The percentages give my subjective view of the likelihood of these outcomes. National governments are fully aware of the threat posed by deflation and will continue to do everything within their power to avert such a catastrophe for global capitalism. The most likely scenario seems to be a forlorn hope to return to the fiesta of the last 20 years. I therefore expect to see current asset deflation replaced by rampant inflation, stoked by runaway energy prices until the system collapses once again - and that will be that.



Slide 26

Euan,

A very impressive compilation of information - very well done to get such a range of aspects in a manageable presentation. Most of this has been on TOD in various places previously, but it's sobering to have it all brought together and have one's worst fears confirmed.

So this was presented to the Royal Society of Chemists - what was their reaction? Were they shocked, baffled or just incredulous to be presented with a lecture explaining that techno-industrial civilization was drawing to a close and nobody seemed to be doing anything about it!?

I often visit the Real Climate blog (articles by high-rank climatologists, many from of the IPCC panel) and I'm sure they would take great issue with your assertions on climate change (slide 14). As far as I can make out, their position is that although 1998 is still the warmest year ever globally, almost all the years since have been almost as warm. They see the cooling of the last year or so as simply due to a strong La Nina event which is bringing cold, deep water to the surface and thereby cooling the atmosphere. When this ends in 1-5 years their expectation is that warming will resume at a faster rate than ever. I accept that some of the IPPC scenarios depend on fuel use rates for future decades which are absurd, but do you feel you are leaving the whole line of argument here open to being overturned by including material about an area in which you are not an expert? It seems to me that the main thrust of the argument that the economy of Britain and the world will likely be demolished by peak oil and gas, does not depend on climate change anyway.

Finally, in slide 25 the figures 70%, <5%, >25% I presume are what you feel the chances are of each of the three scenarios - if so, the scenarios and percentages seems about right to me, sadly.

Doctor Bob
I go with your useful comments.
Regarding climate science, the early stage of a hypothesised trend brings inevitable uncertainty over signal to noise ratios. Scientific accuracy of 'observed' signals for world temperatures is less certain for the deeper past, but regarding climate trends in the last decade (with probable relevance for future decades) I refer to recent paper, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.abstract
reported thus:

... researchers say there's firmer confirmation for their theory that the past decade has been warmer than anything in the previous 1,300 years. In fact, that might stretch to 1,700 years, they say - depending on whether they rely on the controversial evidence of tree rings showing fast and slow growth as the climate varied centuries ago.

The new study, headed by chief researcher Michael Mann of Penn State University, shows what many previous models have shown. Today's climate is about 0.9 degrees warmer than the long-term average for a period of more than 1,000 years.

Phil,

This kind of statement, and very many others like it from from the likes of Mann, is the kind which loses the IPCC much credibility in my eyes and in the eyes of 10,000s other scientists.

My view of the real world is that the climate of the second millennium was dominated by the Little Ice Age (LIA). We have seen a plunge into colder temperatures and then emergence to warmer temperatures - which I will happily concede may have been influenced at margin by GHG factors et al. It is an automatic consequence of these natural phenomena that the today's climate is warmer than during the previous 1000 years.


This rather excellent graphic is from Henrik Svensmark (sorry I don't have a link) shows that Mann et al do not share this view of second millennium climate which leads him to make and get away with statements like the one you posted.

The other data on this graphic which I find very persuasive is the relationship between the cosmogenic isotopes 10Be and 14C and paleo temperature history. The formation of cosmogenic isotopes in the Earth's atmosphere is moderated by the incidence of galactic cosmic rays, the magnetic field of the Sun and the magnetic field of the Earth. There is a well-established link here to sunspot activity - which is a measure of the Sun's geomagnetic activity (which is quite separate to Solar irradiance which is the main parameter considered by the IPCC). Why Earth's climate seems linked to cosmic ray activity in this way is uncertain but several quite reasonable hypotheses have been put forward but which require considerable amounts of further research.

The geomagnetic activity of the Sun has recently become reduced and very quiet. Sunspot cycle 24 is really struggling to get underway and these are solar conditions that may resemble those that eventually led to the LIA. Personally I find these circumstances quite worrying given the latitude where I stay.

It is fair to say that those who live in cities that have been built unwisely in deserts seem to be more concerned about global warming and drought while those of us who live about 3000 ft below the periglacial climatic zone worry more about a return to colder conditions.

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
http://sidc.oma.be/

Euan
Like you I have always been impressed by our being 3000 feet below the arctic - the difference between a world record wheat yield (Haddington, E Lothian) and no arable farming is less than ~1000 ft in our part of Europe.
Thanks for the charts. To me they reinforce the message of just how sensitive climate is to persistent relatively very small forcing. We know that already of course, because of cycling between glacial and interglacial. I have also long been interested in biological reinforcement of these climate cycles - the advance or retreat of boreal forests affect on northern hemisphere albedo being a case in point. It seems reasonable to me prima facie to separate out from (e.g. Mann et al) and compare the study of temperature series represented by biological proxies with other signals of past temperature. The variation then seen in your charts is very interesting, and indicates boundaries of uncertainty. (It does occur to me that biological proxies might cycle for unknown reasons with cosmic background.)
Although arctic summer sea ice retreated a record amount as recently as 2007 (comparison with 2008 at http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ) I would agree that it is too early to tell whether the trend to extreme summer melt will be maintained over the next decade or so.
Phil

The historical record shows that the climate is not stable or predictable over timescales of a few human lifetimes - do we have adequate policies that can cope with any climate change?

I don't think so, no change there, it has always been so, and it is not sensible to plan on the basis that our current aand potential politicians are up to the task.

What I find most interesting is what sort of temps we will record in the next couple of years with a slow down in the world economy.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the concept of global dimming.

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

Is it possible that the stabilizing of the temperature since '98 could be proportionate to the amount of increased particulate from rising Chindia? Does a global economic collapse heat things up?

I guess we'll find out.

Too bad we only have one test subject.

Little darling, I feel that ice is slowly melting
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been clear
Here comes the sun, here comes the sun,
and I say it's all right
It's all right

Why Earth's climate seems linked to cosmic ray activity in this way is uncertain but several quite reasonable hypotheses have been put forward but which require considerable amounts of further research.

Is there any REAL scientific explanation why the decrease in solar MAGNETIC flux as shown by a period of minimal sunspot activity would caused the Ice Age? (The earth is warmed by very regular radiative heat transfer not magnetism or cosmic rays.)

There's no physical mechanism for such GW denier type nonsense.

The explanation is generally that volcanic activity caused it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age is just a coincidence.

Out of curiousity what are your qualifications for commenting so authoritatively on this field of research? From my vantage point you come across as being more like a practitioner of a faith based belief system than someone who is driven by rationality and the scientific method. Having grown up in Scotland I have always found Mann's Hockey Stick less than convincing because as a child I could see evidence for marked natural climate change based on centuries old run rig field patterns at elevations where arable farming isn't attempted in the modern day despite all the advances in fertilisers etc. The recent downplaying of the Little Ice Age, which was very much part of the oral history that I heard growing up is what strikes me as the real exercise in revisionism. The explanation for how solar magnetic flux can affect climate is usually based on the role of cosmic rays on cloud formation and hence on the Earth's albedo. Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv is noteworthy in that regard.

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

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

From my vantage point you come across as being more like a practitioner of a faith based belief system than someone who is driven by rationality and the scientific method.

Absolutely.

I do subscribe completely to the 'faith-based' laws of thermodynamic and heat transfer.
My mind is skeptical toward novel explanations which imply that the earth has been microwaved by sunspots or cooled by the lack of sunspots.
45% of the radiation from the sun is visible light and about 37% is from infrared range radiation plus there are x-rays, etc.
The amount of radiant energy directed toward the earth is about 1100 W/m^2. The greenhouse gas effect is around 155 W/m^2.
Solar and microwave flux interferes with radio communication.
Solar flux units are measured in 10^-22 W/m^2 and typical sun activity is under 1000 solar flux units. Also the amount of energy that can be transmitted by individual radio or microwaves is tiny.

So I find the idea that sunspots and solar flux are controlling our weather to be a bit far-fetched.

Please show me the error of my faith-based ways!
Don't let me languish in ignorance and superstition!

My concern with Prof. Svensmark is that he doesn't mind being part of heavily AGW skeptical documentaries before his results and theory have been assimilated and cross-checked by the scientific community. Mistakes do happen and it takes time to find them:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut20...

Svensmark trotted out his cosmic ray theory a decade ago.

Cosmic flaw

In July, Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory attempted a definitive answer to the question with what appeared to be a simple method. He simply looked at the changing cosmic ray activity over the last 30 years, and asked whether it could explain the rising temperatures.

His conclusion was that it could not. Since about 1985, he found, the cosmic ray count had been increasing, which should have led to a temperature fall if the theory is correct - instead, the Earth has been warming.

"This should settle the debate," he told me at the time.
It has not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm

He's a loon/denier.

Again I have to ask what are your qualifications for using that kind of language? Do you have an in depth knowledge of this field? As someone who makes a living as a scientist I can tell you that this sort of behaviour is not how science is normally conducted. Theories stand and fall based on the available data and ad hominen attacks are very much avoided. You say that you are suspicious of new theories. Well, as recently as the early 1970s plate tectonics still fitted into that sort of category. Science is far from settled in many fields. People should bear in mind that the main greenhouse gas is actually H2O rather than CO2. From what I have been able to piece together the role of clouds is still very poorly understood in current global climate model. It is far from inconceivable that some mechanism relating to cloud formation has a bigger impact than is currently generally realised. As Euan Mearns points out it will be interesting to see what happens with the experiments that CERN conducting to test Svensmark's theories.

http://public.web.cern.ch/PUBLIC/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html

If it requires specialist qualifications to attack someone, it requires specialist qualifications to defend them.

So if he has to be silent, then you do, too.

Presumably you do not wish to be silent, so you cannot expect him to be, and ought to contend with the actual evidence and papers he linked to, rather than crying about "that kind of language."

Of course, deniers of climate change and peak oil don't like contending with evidence.

"It is far from inconceivable that some mechanism relating to cloud formation has a bigger impact than is currently generally realised."

It is far from inconceivable that aliens from Xeta Bootis V are manipulating our climate as a giant test tube. But until you present evidence to that end, we will naturally remain sceptical.

You have missed the point. I have no problem at all with people believing in and posting about AGW. It is a very plausible theory, which may well prove to be correct. What I object to is his use of terms like "deniers" and "loons". That sort of behaviour is more akin to a medieval inquisition hunting down heretics who have challenged a faith based belief system than to the application of the scientific method. It is actually a sign of weakness rather than strength, in my opinion, that people so often seem to resort to that sort of behaviour where AGW is concerned.

Once again, you address the tone of a post without contending with its content. We must then take it that the content is unassailable.

We thank you for your graciously allowing us to "believe" in the "theory" of AGW.

Likewise, because I'm such a fine chap, I will express my contentment at your expression of belief in a purely biological origin for oil, the round Earth going around the Sun, at the theory of gravity, of relativity, quantum uncertainty, evolution, plate tectonics, that smoking causes lung cancer and HIV is responsible for AIDS, and the Big Bang theory.

All of these have their "sceptics", all of these have people with letters after their name who speak against them.

And they are all speaking bollocks. The abuse comes not because they raise doubts, but because the doubts are shown to be groundless due to reams of evidence, and ignoring all that they make the same comments again and again and again and again.

Repetition and wilful ignorance, deliberate obtuseness and blind obstinacy, these are things which, amazingly enough, really annoy people.

Let us have a supporter of the idea of abiotic oil come and post again and again to threads on TOD, ignoring all evidence posted against his ideas, and see how politely he gets treated. Or we could send a Creationist to a geology forum, or an AIDS denier to a medical forum, and see what they say.

In the end, if a person insists on being a horse's arse, he has to expect to be whipped.

Are you a scientist who is active in the field of climate science? If not, why do you even feel qualified to be so strident with your opinions on this subject? Do you think a scientific body like CERN normally waste their time and resources on the ideas of a "loon"? His ideas are being tested out because highly qualified people in Henrik Svensmark's field of research take them seriously and see a need to apply the standard scientific process of conducting controlled experiments to collect data in order to test the validity of the theory. It will be interesting to see what happens with that. As a scientist I have an open mind and will wait for the data before making my mind up.

Well, I am not a scientist but I know a loon/denier when I hear one.
Back in the distant recesses of time there was a scientist who made the most meticulous observations imaginable but he was also a loon/denier.
He couldn't stand a certain simple theory which challenged his
position in his universe so he evolved an alternate which also preserved his values system. He then hired a mathematician to
'validate' his conception scientifically, who (unfortunately) turned out to be honest.
The scientist didn't go about challenging the rival theory in a 'objective' way; his observations were only to be used to prove HIS model and to disprove the others.
Even today I would say that he is in many respects a model scientist.
He is also the archetype of the loon/denier.

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

OTOH,

There was another scientist who proved in a very simple way the
truth of the heliocentric orbit of the earth by direct observation of the phases of Venus.
He was wrong about a number of things but on this particular idea he was mind-bogglingly correct.

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

IMO, it is a mere coincidence that Svensmark and Tycho are both Danes.

I don't have qualifications in the field of climate science, however unlike you (Exiled Scot) in your post above, I don't claim that you need specialist qualifications to speak intelligently about a subject. If we did, then our conversations would be rather limited. We'd have to be professional football players to talk about football, schoolteachers to talk about schools, oncologists to talk about palliative care for terminally ill patients, chefs to talk about food, and so and so forth. That is obviously absurd.

We don't need specialist qualifications in a subject to talk intelligently about it. But we do need to make an effort to learn about it, and if during discussions people point us to new sources of information, we should look at them.

Climate change deniers, like peak oil deniers, HIV/AIDS connection deniers, evolution deniers and so on, these are people who refuse to look at evidence presented by anyone except them. Whereas those who accept the mainstream theories will look at any evidence; they look at that presented by the deniers, deal with it and move on. But the deniers battle on obliviously, showing up in place after place with the same debunked ideas.

The denier refuses to look at any information but his own, but expects the mainstream to look again and again at his own information.

That is deliberately obtuse, wilfully ignorant, and is why people get annoyed and start tossing around such vicious unbearable insults as "loon".

As a scientist I have an open mind and will wait for the data before making my mind up.

Then I invite you to look into abiotic oil, into those denying the connection between HIV and AIDS, into Creationist geology, into the Flat Earth theory, Intelligent Design in biology, orgone theory, Lysenko's genetics, and... well, there are others, but that ought to keep you busy for a while.

You should keep your mind open, but not so open that the wind whistles through it emptily.

Kiashu, please Stop the nonsense already.

1. Euan posted this for discussion.

2. Euan, and anyone else, can post comments - regardless of qualifications.

3. We the readers already know the level of Euan's expertise - he did NOT pretend to be an expert. So there is certainly NOTHIING wrong with anyone requesting the Same Courtesy from a very "assertive," anonymous, respondent who disagrees.

Finally, whether we like it or not the study of Climate Change is still in it's infancy. The Climate System is just as complex - if not more so - than the mechanics/processes of evolution.

And That grand theory is still being refined and expanded upon today, afer 150 years of debate.

Also, it is absurd to compare the "creationism vs evolution, flatearthers, etc " debates with questions about the mechanisms involved in climate change, and how each mechanism interacts with the others.

Euan, and anyone else, can post comments - regardless of qualifications.

I'm glad you agree. But don't tell me, tell Exiled Scot, who says that if you're not qualified in that specialist area, you can't comment.

Or rather, he says that an unqualified person (Mearns) can doubt the consensus of mainstream science, but an unqualified person (me) can't defend the consensus of mainstream science. So qualifications matter when you disagree with Exiled Scot, but are unimportant when you agree with him.

For my part, I say that qualifications are unimportant for intelligent discussion of issues of public affairs - whatever your opinions are. What matters is to learn as much as you can before expressing an opinion, and to consider seriously any evidence placed before you afterwards - but hey, once each for each bit of evidence is enough, it gets tedious hashing over the same stuff for years.

Unfortunately, this tends not to be the way human minds work. Rather than collecting evidence and then forming an opinion, we often form an opinion and then look for evidence to support it. That is fair enough - so long as we don't deliberately ignore anything against our opinion.

For my part, I've responded to many climate change denier points in this discussion. "No warming since 1998" I've debunked. The bizarre "thirty year cycle" I've knocked down. Of course I've not had a response to this.

We the readers already know the level of Euan's expertise - he did NOT pretend to be an expert.

Yes and no. On the one hand, he hasn't fluffed up his resume or anything like that. On the other hand, he presented a big old slideshow and an article on TOD presenting what he considers to be The Truth. So he's presenting himself as an expert, making an "argument from authority" as himself.

But I don't think that's a big problem. The problem is not whether he's an expert on climate change, but that he's wrong about climate change.

But even being wrong is not the true problem. The true problem is deliberately ignoring anything presented to him to show he's wrong. This is why deniers always seize on the tone of critiques and quibble with details - so they can avoid the actual point, the evidence that shows their ideas are a nonsense.

Finally, whether we like it or not the study of Climate Change is still in it's infancy. The Climate System is just as complex - if not more so - than the mechanics/processes of evolution.

Absolutely. But while the details of evolution are still argued about, the general trends of it are not - except among the deliberately obtuse deniers. There's a general consensus on many areas of it. Likewise, while the precise details of climate change are argued about, the general trends of it are not - except among the deliberately obtuse deniers.

That humans are the single biggest cause of global warming in our time is not in doubt.

It's rather the way that medical professionals may argue over whether (say) a pack a day will knock 5 years off your life, or 10 years - but none argue that it does on average reduce your lifetime. Well, no-one except cigarette companies and their flunkies, anyway.

Also, it is absurd to compare the "creationism vs evolution, flatearthers, etc " debates with questions about the mechanisms involved in climate change, and how each mechanism interacts with the others.

Again, you're confusing the general trends with the details. Scientists argue over the details of everything. If they didn't, they'd have no profession, after all. The scientific method is a long process of hypothesising, testing, measuring, analysing, arguing and then starting again.

But there exists a general consensus on many and various things. One of those things is that humans are the single biggest cause of global warming in our time. And there exist many deliberately obtuse people who deny this.

In this, the issue of climate change is exactly like those of peak oil, evolution, the round Earth and so on.

If people wish, I could write an article supporting the theory of abiotic oil. After all, Mearns has already told us that it's good to be "deliberately controversial". When people critique my article, I could focus on the tone of their posts, ignore any evidence brought before me or quibble with its details, and so on.

Of course, such nonsense wouldn't get a hearing on TOD - and rightly so. Nonsensical climate change denials are welcomed, nonsensical peak oil denials are not. I think the ideal is that nonsense is in general should be rejected here.

Finally, whether we like it or not the study of Climate Change is still in it's infancy.

Bull. No area of scientific inquiry that has achieved a 99% certainty level can be said to be in its infancy. This is your agenda talking, not the facts.

It's intellectually dishonest.

Cheers

And the Dalton Minimum? And the Sporer Minimum? And the Oort Minimum? And the V century Minimum? And the III century Minimum? Coincidences also?

Show us the data.

*with* error bars(!)

And the references to where this data came from?

Svensmark H., Cosmic Rays and Earth's Climate, Space Science Reviews, Volume 93, Numbers 1-2, 2000 , pp. 175-185(11)

Usoskin,I., Solanki,S. K., Schüssler,M., Mursula,K., Alanko,K. Millenium-scale sunspot number reconstruction: Evidence for an unusually active Sun since the 1940s, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 91, nº 21, 2003.

The conclusions reached in the references you provided (still waiting for the error bars) have been more than sufficiently debunked by;

Schiermeier, Quirin, No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448008a

T Sloan et al, Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover 2008 Environ. Res. Lett. 3 024001 (6pp) doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001

Even Lassen and Friis-Christensen have accepted that the current warming is due to something other than the sun.

Greenhouse effect sceptics may have lost their final excuse. The Sun has been dethroned as the dominant source of climate change, leaving the finger of blame pointing at humans.

A correlation between the sunspot cycle and temperatures in the northern hemisphere seemed to account for most of the warming seen up until 1985. But new results reveal that for the past 15 years something other than the Sun—probably greenhouse emissions—has pushed temperatures higher.

I'll also note that there was no correlation of your referenced data to global temperatures, so it's not apparent what you were trying to communicate.

The earth is warmed by very regular radiative heat transfer

My understanding is that direct measurements on The Sun go back only about 40 years and that it is indeed the case that in this micro second of Earth History, that solar iradiance has not varied significantly. We do of course need these measurements on a time scale >10,000 years to make any kind of useful statement about irradiance on a time scale suited to this debate.

Dr Henrik Svensmark, a Director of The Danish Space Institute, has proposed the theory of cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere influencing the formation of clouds. This theory has attracted some considerable attention and a large experiment is to be conducted at CERN to test it. I'd strongly advise that you refrain from dismissing this type of important work as "GW denier type nonsense" until the results of these experiments are known.

I could provide a longer list but since my main point is to try and turn attention off CO2 and onto energy efficiency I will refrain. Do you agree with this general principal - or are do you believe that we should burn large quantities of our remaining fossil fuels to bury CO2?

GW denier type nonsense

I'm at pains to point out that I accept GHG contribute to climate change but am unwilling to accept the ludicrous proposition that the natural processes that have moderated climate change in the past some how just got switched off in 1980.

The explanation is generally that volcanic activity caused it

This is a very interesting concept - would you care to elaborate upon how volcanoes influence global average temperatures. Be warned that I am now setting a trap for those willing to accept doctrine (as I too have done in the past) without questioning it.

My understanding is that direct measurements on The Sun go back only about 40 years and that it is indeed the case that in this micro second of Earth History, that solar iradiance has not varied significantly. We do of course need these measurements on a time scale >10,000 years to make any kind of useful statement about irradiance on a time scale suited to this debate.

Could you quantify this assertion? Even given the lags in the system, most of the influence of a change in forcing is felt within a decade, so a 40 year record of solar irradiance (and SSN, for that matter) is more than sufficiently long to rule out a direct or indirect solar influence on modern climate change (Observed, thermometer record). Given this I don't understand why '10,000 years' of data is required.

The assertion that the data series given topped in 1998 and is now trending down is statistically invalid and demonstratably so. I don't understand how you could get a PhD whilst making such statements.

You don't need CERN experiments to see a potential cloud seeding effect. However, there is no stastically significant relationship between solar activity and climate, and no demonstrated shortage of CCNs as far as I am aware. So I'm not entirely sure what any experimental results would demonstrate.

This is a very interesting concept - would you care to elaborate upon how volcanoes influence global average temperatures. Be warned that I am now setting a trap for those willing to accept doctrine (as I too have done in the past) without questioning it..

Are you seriously of the position that volcanic eruptions don't affect climate??? Don't tell me.. tell it to this guy:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/volcanic-lull/

My main problem witrh all this is that you give a perfectly reasonable talk on energy depletion and consequences, and throw in a slide that is, let's face it, simply incorrect and about as incongrious as a slide saying 'Oil is a limited resource - it all comes from animals buried in the Flood'. Instantly your audience is switched into 'This guy isn't to be taken seriously' mode.

Could you quantify this assertion? Even given the lags in the system, most of the influence of a change in forcing is felt within a decade, so a 40 year record of solar irradiance (and SSN, for that matter) is more than sufficiently long to rule out a direct or indirect solar influence on modern climate change (Observed, thermometer record). Given this I don't understand why '10,000 years' of data is required.

Charvátová I., Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion?, Annales Geophysicae, vol. 18, no4, 2000, pp. 399-405.

Damon, P. E., Solar Induced Variations of Energetic Particles at One AU, The Solar Output and its Variation, Proceedings of a Workshop, held in Boulder, Colorado, April 26-28, 1976. Edited by Oran R. White. Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press, 1977., p.429.

Suess, 1980 H.E. Suess, Radiocarbon 22 (1980), p. 200.
(not available on the web but insight here.)

L.H. Ma, J.M. Vaquero, Is the Suess cycle present in historical naked-eye observations of sunspots?, New AstronomyIn Press, Corrected Proof, , Available online 30 September 2008.

And this is relevant how??

And this is relevant how?? "

He is trying to answer you - "why is 10,000 years data needed?" you said above.

You asked "Could you quantify this assertion?," when Euan said there is a need to look back as far as 10,000 years. You insisted 40 years of data is enough.

Do you not even have ANY interest in what a longer time period might show - as in the links provided?. That is why the links are relevant.

do you believe that we should burn large quantities of our remaining fossil fuels to bury CO2?

Coal and oil are proven methods of carbon geosequestration, it's been shown that they require huge efforts to dig up. I believe the best way to sequester carbon is not to burn it in the first place.

I'm at pains to point out that I accept GHG contribute to climate change but am unwilling to accept the ludicrous proposition that the natural processes that have moderated climate change in the past some how just got switched off in 1980.

Luckily, you do not have to accept a position which no-one has taken.

If you can point to a single qualified or at least well-educated person saying that natural processes "switched off in 1980", I'll be very interested to see it. In fact, people simply say that while natural processes moderate human contributions, if the human contributions are big enough they overwhelm those natural processes. This is rather like the way my liver will remove alcohol from my system, so that I can have a glass of wine an hour and not get drunk; but if I have a bottle of wine an hour then it overwhelms my body's natural processes and I get hammered.

Still, I will be interested to hear of these people saying these absurd things. If they exist. Of course, it's much easier to have a brilliant argument when you're making up the words for both sides, so that you can make the opposition sound ludicrous. It worked for Socrates, after all.

I'm at pains to point out that I accept GHG contribute to climate change but am unwilling to accept the ludicrous proposition that the natural processes that have moderated climate change in the past some how just got switched off in 1980.

I'd like to assert at this point, that no-one in the IPCC has ever made this ludicrous proposition. I would be surprised if there is any research-active climatologist anywhere who would even remotely support this ludicrous proposition.

I have encountered climatologists who take the attitude that their models are so damn good that further acquisition of actual paleoclimate data is rather quaint from a climatology perspective, but even they are not denying that pre-industrial climate had significant variability (and in fact contemporary GCMs are becoming disturbingly good at reproducing past climates and their variability). Conversely those IPCC authors I have met are universally well-informed as to the current state of paleoclimate research.

A vast amount of effort has been expended in recent years attempting to fingerprint currently observed change in terms of expected effects of both natural and anthropogenic forcings, and this body of research has informed the most recent IPCC assessment. An AGW effect was predicted decades ago, with increasing confidence as GCMs became more powerful in the late 1980s, and after accounting for variability in natural forcings that effect has now been observed and validated with a high degree of confidence. Why do people wish for this simple thing to be so controversial?

The published literature is vast, and rich, and is only cherry-picked by any of the various pro- and anti- web sites out there. Google scholar is as good a method as any of overview:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=global+warming+attribution+&hl=en...

"The explanation is generally that volcanic activity caused it

This is a very interesting concept - would you care to elaborate upon how volcanoes influence global average temperatures. Be warned that I am now setting a trap for those willing to accept doctrine (as I too have done in the past) without questioning it."

This explanation is easy. Sulfur dioxide emissions result in sulfate particle formation. When those sulfate particles are in the upper atmosphere, they reflect sun's radiation back out into space. For example, when Mount Pinatuba erupted June 15, 1991, millions of tons of sulfur dioxide were emitted and much of this into the upper atmosphere. For two years afterwards, the earth was cooled from this effect.

This effect has also been shown to occur due to reports of general global dimming. The smoking gun for this is that after 9/11 when passenger jets were grounded for several days and the SO2 and other particulates were no longer being emitted into the upper atmosphere, the earth warmed appreciably.

What information do you have that counters this very compelling data?

Retsel

Mt. Pinatubo eruption 1991. In addition to the obvious 2 yr cycle of high-atmospheric aerosols, which can cool atmosphere by blocking sunlight. Certainly does have dramatic effects....

A recent NASA-funded study has linked the 1991 eruption of the Mount Pinatubo to a strengthening of a climate pattern called the Arctic Oscillation.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0306aopin.html


Retsel - you give the text book explanation which I tended to accept myself for many years. Looking at the actual data (red line), however, I find it very difficult to see evidence for cooling associated with any of the major eruptions of the last 120 years. Using the text book logic you describe, the climate models (green) predict significant cooling associated with each of the 5 major eruptions and to be honest I can't really see evidence for cooling beyond noise in the actual temperature record with any of those, especially Pinatubo and Krakatau. Maybe others see this differently?

SO2 aerosol in the stratosphere I believe causes warming, and I have seen a chart before that shows this - can't find it now. And so you'd think you may see cooling in the lower troposphere - but as already mentioned this seems be absent in the data.

There's no doubt that weather changed as a result of these major eruptions. In Aberdeen at least it rained every day in 1992.

One final point, on the Stott et al diagram the excess warming since 1960 (displacement of red data above green model) is that which climate scientists say is due to GHG et al. In other words, we don't see the cooling caused by the volcanoes because of the warming caused by GHGs. The problem I have is that we don't seem to see the cooling caused by Krakatau either.

Well, one could not tell very much from a chart of data containing over 150 years of data... A chart of 15 years of HadCRUT data clearly shows a cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatuba, but of course it does not confirm causality.

But the facts agree with the story, so to speak. For example, sulfate's impact on global temperature can be demonstrated both theoretically and imperically (although it matters if the sulfate particles are in the upper atmosphere or lower atmosphere). This is true for carbon dioxide as well. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenouse gas, this can be proven in the lab. We also know that carbon dioxide levels are increasing. Therefore, temperature levels are bound to increase. This line of thinking is so simple, but the media, lay people and even some scientists (try to?) make it complicated.

Yes carbon dioxide is a relatively weak greenhouse gas, but its concentration is relatively high. However, increases in carbon dioxide levels potentiates other changes, such as increased water vapor and methane concentrations in the atmosphere, which are both more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. These are the among the powerful forcing factors which will cause our climate to heat extensively.

I recall the global dimming piece that was aired on PBS projected a huge temperature increase based on projected increases in carbon dioxide levels (this projection was made from previous high carbon dioxide levels and the estimated average temperature that accompanied the high carbon dioxide levels). Based on future carbon dioxide levels, carbon dioxide was projected to heat the earth by 7 degrees F. If global dimming were to addressed, the earth would heat by another 7 degrees F. These two effects combined together was estimated to cause extensive methane release from tundra areas and from methane hydrates, which would cause another 7 degrees F increase in temperature. Altogether, the earth may heat up by a total of 21 degrees F - pretty scary stuff...

Climate change deserves our full attention. We must address peak oil through means that will, at the same time, decrease carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) concentrations.

Retsel

"Climate change deserves our full attention. We must address peak oil through means that will, at the same time, decrease carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gas) concentrations. "

Retsel, I tend to disagree about these priorities for peak oil remedies and decreasing CO2 levels.

I don't think we have time left to place those kinds of restrictons on peak oil remedies

Ask a third-worlder what are his priorites? THAT is the level of desperation that is likely to become common place in many regions of most industrial countries over the next 5 years.

As the world economic collapse gets worse, people will do what ever is necessary to keep warm and to eat.

They will ignore any restrictions the Global Village, Nation, State etc try to put on their ability to stay warm and eat.

If you insist on your CO2 restrictions for staying warm and eating, I think individual homes will be forced to burn coal as the Fuel of First Resort as the availability of Fire Wood, fuel oil and NG will be too costly, or too unreliable (intermittant availability).

Many older homes in my area still have coal-shoot doors in their foundations next to their driveways... Burning coal in an old woodstove in the basement will work just fine when you cannot possibly Afford a more efficient, less polluting modern wood/coal stove.

This is NOT what I want. This is Not my "agenda."

I just think we have reached a turning point in which Worrying about CO2 Emmissions is going to be something only the wealthy have the Luxury to do.

Dr Henrik Svensmark, a Director of The Danish Space Institute, has proposed the theory of cosmic ray penetration of the atmosphere influencing the formation of clouds. This theory has attracted some considerable attention and a large experiment is to be conducted at CERN to test it. I'd strongly advise that you refrain from dismissing this type of important work as "GW denier type nonsense" until the results of these experiments are known.

It's not an issue of being "GW denier type nonsense," but of not being very good science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-t...

I say again: show me ONE piece of work that withstands critique and clearly casts doubt on AGW.

You can't do it. Just as you discuss the old Mann work while ignoring the new....

Cheers

First - There is little change in your 'cosmic ray' graph from 1750 to present, suprising given the drastic tempertature changes. The graphs also conviently ends before the present day with temperatures going even higher. I also don't understand why you prefer Northern Hemisphere tempoeratures (Moberg 2005) to Global ones.. or just use a more recent temperature reconstruction. Mann 1998 is quite out of date now.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

Second - You may find data 'persuasive' but I'd like to see the statistical analysis. Is this a significant relationship? Sun-climate influence hypotheses have a long history of slipping away when rigorous analysis is applied, unfortunately.

Third - Why are the 10Be ratios different in the North and South poles? Anything to do with fractionation of isotopes due to precipitation differences (a well established effect)? Isotope ratios track climate patterns as well, making such reconstructions trecherous.

Fourth - Are you saying that CO2 levels have no influence on climate? If so, there is a HUGE amount of paleoclimatology that needs re-writing..

Now, this is a test. Can you engage on the above points and respond in a civilised manner, or will you ignore them or respond with abuse (accusations of following the herd, being some sort of ideologue, etc.)?

Problem is that this theory is falling apart against the modern instrumental record:



Solar and heliospheric observations for recent decades compared with global
mean temperature data. (a) The international sunspot number, R, compiled by the World Data
Centre (WDC) for the Sunspot Index, Brussels, Belgium. (b) The open solar flux FS derived from
the radial component of the interplanetary magnetic field, taken from the OMNI2 composite
dataset compiled by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC), USA. (c) The neutron count
rate C due to cosmic rays of rigidity of above 3 GV, recorded by the Climax neutron monitor and
distributed via WDC-A, Boulder, USA. (d ) The TSI composite compiled by the World Radiation
Centre, PMOD Davos, Switzerland. (e) The GISS analysis of the global mean surface air
temperature anomaly DT (with respect to the mean for 1951–1980), compiled by GSFC, primarily
from meteorological station data. The black lines are monthly means and in (d ) daily values are
also shown in grey. A thin horizontal line at TSI of 1365.3WmK2 has been drawn in (d) to
highlight that values in the recent solar minimum have fallen below the minima of near
1365.5WmK2 seen during both the previous two solar minima


ref: Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature

Peak ion pair values produced by GCR are between 30 and 40 per cubic centimeter and occur above the extratropical tropopause. Even though GCR are high energy particles they still get focused into the geomagnetic polar caps. There are less than 10 ion pairs per cc in the upper tropical troposphere. There are less than 10 ion pairs per cc below 4 km falling to less than 1 at the surface. (Usoskin et al. have a 3D climatology of GCR.)

Cloud condensation nuclei formation from GCR ionization via water cluster ion formation has been proposed as a link between GCR and climate. CCN above the tropopause will help cirrus cloud formation which act as infrared traps and transmit visible band solar radiation so in this case GCR will increase warming. GCR below 5 km have the potential to affect low altitude cloud formation (which then could produce and albedo driven cooling) but then there are vastly more (at least an order of magnitude) CCN of other types in the lower troposphere. But CCN in the lowermost stratosphere are a different matter since the air is coming from above in the extratropics and is nearly devoid of tropospheric particulate matter. Of course it will have sulfate aerosols formed in situ from SO2 in the stratosphere and will have a component of meteorite dust and smoke particles.

So, the most likely impact of GCR on cloud formation would be in the extratropical tropopause region. Then it should be producing a warming trend via infrared trapping but the above plot shows a period of cooling during the highest GCR fluxes.

Another process by which GCR can impact the troposphere is via NOx formation from ionization. NOx in the troposphere contributes to ozone formation (unlike the stratosphere where it acts to catalytically destroy it). Ozone is a greenhouse gas. So higher GCR should be producing warming.

What the above two figures demonstrate is that correlation is not causation. In this case, it is hard to argue that the limited time period comparison between two varying timeseries is showing something other than coincidental overlap of two troughs.

Euan, please. How you manage to lose your logical underpinnings when you go off on Climate Change I will never know.

1. You are using a three year-old chart that does not take into account much more recent work, e.g. the updated work from Mann, et al. this year. Avoiding the most recent data because it disrupts your world view has no place in legitimate debate.

2. The claim is not "the last thousand years," it is at least the last thousand years.

3. The comparison is not of the avg. for the period of a thousand years, as you imply, but is of averages for any given year, so your point is meaningless.

4. It's all about trends, not specific data points. (How can you write anything that would ignore this?) E.g.: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.html

5. These might interest you about Mann, et al.'s previous paper. (Given the 2008 paper is much improved, your position looks quite untenable.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariati...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-rega...

6.

The geomagnetic activity of the Sun has recently become reduced and very quiet. Sunspot cycle 24 is really struggling to get underway and these are solar conditions that may resemble those that eventually led to the LIA. Personally I find these circumstances quite worrying given the latitude where I stay.

Unfortunately, there is no credible work showing the short-term solar cycles have a significant effect on climate. Also, I wasn't aware it had been established the LIA was caused by solar cycles. Got a link?

Further, above you dismiss a claim because, as far as I can tell from your comments, it is too sweeping a claim. You do so while providing nothing but your opinion that Mann, et al., are wrong and can be dismissed. (Along with an appeal to authority stating tens of thousands of scientists disagree. Newsflash: there are MILLIONS of scientists on the planet. Do the math.) Yet, you give credence to solar influence over short time spans even though no credible evidence exists. Is this not just a tad dishonest?

7. The use of pejoratives - "from the likes of" - proves you are biased. (Yes, I do the same. The science demands it. There is no credible argument against AGW. None. I repeat my challenge: show me ONE credible, peer-reviewed paper that has not already been eviscerated.) I therefore did a little search on Henrik and came up with this take from RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-t...

Enough. You will soon enough regret your stance. I already do.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifts phase in 20 to 30 years intervals. Last winter's La Niña was not an abnormal, isolated event. Also, mind that by May the ENSO was back to null.

Doctorbob, I can answer this in a number of ways. I could maybe start by pointing out that I am absolutely no expert in banking but had managed to work out well in advance of all the expert bankers that the banking system was in a perilous state.

I feel obliged to point out that i have a PhD in geology and actually took a course in climatology whilst an undergraduate and I feel this does give me some scientific grounding to read and understand papers and reports written by the IPCC and to draw my own conclusions from the evidence laid forth. I think I have a pretty good grasp of most of the arguments made about radiative forcing and would venture that I maybe have a better understanding than most of a myriad other factors that may influence Earth's climate which unfortunately the IPCC ignore.

The IPCC in my opinion draw some unsound conclusions that are presented as undeniable facts. Their forward modeling is based on what I consider to be unrealistic expectations of economic growth founded on non-existent reserves of fossil fuels that cannot be burned to produce the CO2 scenarios they present. Their associates go on to argue for CO2 mitigation strategies that are energy intensive. I feel compelled to point out that EU and UK energy policies are based on a very precarious framework that has been constructed by panels of self appointed experts.

The main point I want to get across is an energy efficiency mantra and the real challenge is how to get Governments attention on this issue. I believe the specter of thousands dying from cold - maybe this winter - while they piss away vast amounts of energy and the nation's wealth, dealing with a CO2 issue, might just catch their attention. Though they will no doubt stand up and say "we had no way of knowing this might happen".

Yes - the % assigned are pulled out of thin air and are based on a gut feel of how I see things. The really worrying thing is the 25% for deflation - Stoneleigh would likely set that much higher - chaos in financial markets spills over into the real economy and we all get caught up in a downward spiral. I certainly am not prepared for that.

Euan

founded on non-existent reserves of fossil fuels that cannot be burned to produce the CO2 scenarios they present.

If your thesis is that GHG-driven climate change cannot be a problem because insufficient fossil fuel exist, I would beg to respectfully differ. Items: 1) Everyone knows petroleum is not he problem, its coal. 2) present statistics on coal resources are ridiculously understated. eg. in Alberta, Canada, at this map http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/website/cbm/viewer.htm , you can see based on geological estimates developed for coalbed methane recovery that the ENTIRE LOWER HALF OF THE PROVINCE is underlain by coalbeds "in the range of" 100+ meters thick. That coalbed area is about 500 (+++) km square AT LEAST. Almost none of it is counted as reserve or resource because it is too deep to surface mine and too low quality to underground mine. (Even so, Alberta has "acknowledged" coal resources among the highest in the world, relatively tiny areas where the seams are accessable).

The kicker is, in-situ gasification techniques now being developed will make this entire system "commercial", whenever the other energy sources drop off.

Saying there is not enough fossil fuels to cause manmade global warming problems is just the wrong answer.

The AGS estimate is here, and includes the following:

The Energy Resources Conservation Board estimates there are 91 billion tonnes of coal resources at depth suitable for mining. There is an additional 2 trillion tonnes of coal at depth in the Alberta Plains that may be suited for coal bed methane (CBM) exploration

The 25m figure appears to be cumulate thickness that might be the total of many thin seams, over 70 to 120m, at depths to 2800m. There is no way this can be mined using known methods and Canadians.

I worked in the coal industry for a few years, and was amazed how little modern technology finds its way into underground mining. This has been due to the cyclical coal prices, which make miners wary of buying expensive new equipment, and safety concerns - they like to stay with what they know. This is sure to change eventually, probably through use of remote mining or in-situ gasification.

BTW, the largest known coalfield is at the Alaska North Slope, and extends under the arctic ocean. The planned pipeline will probably start with the natural gas, then operate for many more years moving syngas.

You are right. There is more than enough coal to fry the planet.

Half Full,

Please pardon my ignorance on this subject, but I recently viewed a seemingly very solid TOD post on the coming on Peak Coal (at least in the US). It was NOT in terms of total production (tonnes) but in terms of BTU content and EROEI. The reduction in the use of Anthracite coal in the US has been obvious for many years and its replacement with Bituminous and Sub-bituminous coal. However, recently, even the very poor quality lignite coal is being burned in ever increasing quantities. From the TOD post it was explained that this is because of the expected Hubbert depletion curve and the decline in EROEI. I even saw another posting which suggested that PEAK ENERGY (for coal) had already arrived in the US as of 1998, with the decreasing average energy content of coal being mined (BTU/tonne being lower for lignite coal than for anthracite) and perhaps the increasing depth that it had to be mined from overwhelming the increasing tonnage being taken from the ground.

So in summary, although I may agree with you in a theoretical sense that there is plenty of coal to "fry" the world (if CO2 can actually do that??), BUT the key question is NOT is there enough coal to do that. The key question is (IMHO): "Is there enough high EROEI coal to significantly harm the human population??". THe answer to that question is probably a LOT different than a simple statement that there is enough coal in the ground. I am sure that Alberta has plenty of coal several miles deep. Is the EROEI of that coal sufficient to justify extracting it?? A very different question with probably a very different answer.

I would be very interested to know if you believe that there is enough High EROEI coal to raise global CO2 to 500 ppm.

Good debate so far.

Ian

Ian,
The discussion on this board often shifts between the oil business, where I haven't worked, to coal, where I have, so I probably miss the transfer of assumptions from oil to coal. It may be that high oil prices have been a sufficient incentive to put all of the $70 oil into production, but the same is not the case of $120 coal.

Almost all coal miners that I have heard of remember very low coal prices, (around $10/tonne, equivalent to $5/bbl oil). Because supply contracts tend to be made on multiyear terms, there are still miners working under the burden of low prices, even while they pay record high prices for their diesel. Add in the time it takes to pay off debt (most businesses will now want to do that ASAP), and it will be years or decades before any consider developing new more expensive underground projects.

EROI of coal remains the highest of any fossil fuel, and there is a lot of room for technological improvement. There just hasn't been any incentive or trust to do it.

I expect that if oil production does decline at 9.1%/yr, and once people believe it is happening, most public concern for GHG emissions will vanish, and coal extraction will proceed as the market allows. Whether extraction rate peaks in 2020 or 2100 doesn't matter, as the curve will be very broad, and CO2 remains aloft for many centuries. It is easy to account for 500ppm eventually.

The alternative is to develop solar energy sources that are cheaper than expensive coal, while establishing a limit on human population other than energy availability. Otherwise the population will grow so fast that people need solar and coal.

good question. but you have only got half of it right.
we are concerned about EROI for the amount of energy it provides to do work. The amount of energy surplus from an energy input/output analysis says nothing about its greenhouse gas impact, or any measures other than energy. So we COULD use twice as much coal in order to get the same amount of BTUs, and release FOUR times as much carbon, if the lower EROI coal also happened to be higher in pollutants.

Hence running out of coal would limit emissions. Running out of high EROI coal would probably INCREASE emissions, if we still used the same amount of gross BTUs.

(I don't know the incremental GHG impact from differing coal grades but do know that Wyoming coal used in Fischer-Tropsch CTL has 400% the incremental GHGs that does turning Saudi crude into gasoline (Marano, Ciferno 2001)

Lengould - thanks for reminding me about in-situ gasification of coal. A few comments:

1. You make the point well that these massive coal resources are not coal reserves in the conventional mining context since they are too deep for surface mining techniques and too low grade for deep mining.

2. We need to remember that energy flows (and consequent CO2 emissions) are related to rates of extraction - that applies for both oil and coal. In the case of coal we have some truly gigantic high grade surface deposits which are being mined as fast as we can mine them. Once these are gone we are in deep trouble since it will be very difficult to replace energy flows from deep low grade deposits of the type you mention here.

3. Are you able to comment on ERoEI for in-situ gasification techniques and on the recovery factors - how much of the underground coal can be produced in this way? I am not being flippant here. I suspect the ERoEI may be low owing to large energy inputs and that recovery will be low - but I don't know.

4. How much of existing global FF energy production comes from in-situ gasification? Is it scalable?

I Googled "coal in situ gasification" and got this link:

http://www.alternatefuelsworld.com/in-situ-coal.html

It is interesting to note that a % of combustible gas produced is Hydrogen - depending upon the techniques that are used.

Euan,
According to Heading out present production by in-situ gasification is not massive:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/5/010/09681

However, the EROI appears good:
http://www.alternatefuelsworld.com/in-situ-coal.html
http://www.ucgp.com/key-facts/ucg-faq/

The bit you leave out is that CO2 capture and sequestration is very much part of the plan where the development of in situ gasification is concerned:-

http://www.ergoexergy.com/eucg.htm

It seems most unlikely that you could re-inject scrubbed CO2 into the same coal basin from which you had just produced in-situ gas. In other words UCG and CCS don't go together.

According to World Coal Institute, "The world currently consumes over 4050 Mt of coal." (/ yr presumeably) http://www.worldcoal.org/assets_cm/files/PDF/thecoalresource.pdf

They also state "It has been estimated that there are over 984 billion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide (see definitions). This means that there is enough coal to last us over 190 years" [? 984 / 4.05 = 242 ? perhaps they allow for a compounded growth rate?]

Taking a conservative estimate of the amount of coal contained and accessable to in-situ gassification in Alberta, at 2 cu m / ton, avg 25 M thickness and 250 km x 400 km area, the math works out as.

12.5 million T / sq km x 100,000 sq km area = 12,500 billion tonnes

Thats about 100x acknowledged present world reserves. One province of Canada.

Interesting how easily some people loose their calm on this issue.

"It is not the size of the barrel, it's the size of the tap." I wait to hear how that resource can be put online in time to avoid the CO2 emissions peak by 2020.

You haven't established that there will be an ultimate peaking of GHG emissions by 2020. I wait to hear how that will be unavoidable.

Yes I did.

Relying on Earth Watch Group for your sole projection for coal production and carbon emissions is IMHO a weak, non-scientific argument. In your own article, Jean Laherrère shows the peak around 2050. In a scenario where peak oil becomes obvious, a ramping up of coal production (including in-situ) could conceivably occur, so I'm willing to consider your 2020 CO2 emissions peak projection to be a possibility, but only one of many.

Euan,

I have no problem with alternative arguments being put forward, it is important they are considered. Also, I'm fed up with Real Climate (where Khebab occasionally posts comments) and the like saying things such as "there are more than enough fossil fuel reserves to produce any of the IPCC scenarios". Presumably they have in mind the entire amount of oil/gas/coal that could theoretically be extracted - equivalent of Original Oil in Place - which in the case of oil, rarely more than 40% can be got out. However, there can be no argument that CO2 causes a rise in atmospheric temperature and that CO2 is currently at the highest level for hundreds of thousands of years. Even if a significant proportion of recent warming were not due to CO2, it would be irresponsible to continue raising its level. In general I must side with Matt (comment below) though I don't think that all summer Arctic sea ice will disappear by 2013 or even close to that date.

One of my main concerns (and I chose my words carefully here) was that you were mixing a vitally important argument - that peak oil and gas are imminent and will be economically and socially catastrophic for the world in general and the UK in particular - with what could be seen as another which is discredited, climate change denial. Obviously not your intention, but it could distract the attention of the audience. One could imagine groups of them chattering afterwards and tut-tutting about what they saw as a suggestion we would return to the Little Ice Age in a decade or two with atmospheric CO2 above 400ppm.

And I'd still be very interested to know what the reaction was, as an audience more likely to be skeptical of a peak oil and economic collapse argument would be hard to find!

Dr. Robert Morgan
Caerphilly
Wales, UK.

Euan, I agree with much of what you have said. However in slide 14 your "Remedies" is missing the most important item. In Slide 25 you point out the population in 1929 was 1.9 billion and is now near 6.7 billion. This is understandable when seeing the photo of the beautiful lady on preceding slide. However, enforced population control must be put in place or all conservation measures and contributions from new (alternate) energy sources, etc., will be exercises in futility I liked Nates preceding article because he sticks his neck out and states obvious truths even if they are not the "politically correct" thing to say.

I am tired of the present environment in the west where everything anyone says about many subjects is belittled and diminished by governmental, industrial, and religious political groups even though what is being said is obviously true. The pressures applied by the political spokespersons of special interest groups have, in effect, stifled free speech. I would encourage you and others to stick out your neck and address and emphasize the truth that the population problem is one of the main contributors to consumption and energy and resource depletion. I know, if you do this, many people will turn off and ignore everything else you have said. But it must be said.

doctorbob asked,
"So this was presented to the Royal Society of Chemists - what was their reaction? Were they shocked, baffled or just incredulous to be presented with a lecture explaining that techno-industrial civilization was drawing to a close and nobody seemed to be doing anything about it!?"

Great question, I wondered the same thing! I would think that of all professions to convince of the reality of impending catastrophe due to peak oil, chemists would be the absolute hardest to convince. I mean if you asked a chemist to name everything on Earth living or inert that had hydrogen in it, how many items could he/she name?

Now, ask the chemist to name everything on Earth, living or inert that had carbon in it, how many items could he name?

To a chemist, crude oil, natural gas, and coal would be just three of thousands of items that contained hydrogen and carbon. What makes them so damn special?

I remember when I was a child and beginning student, it was pronounced to me with great importance that oil was HYDRO-CARBON fuel. I was suitably awed, which is what the teacher intended. A HYDRO-CARBON, wow! That's got to be rare! It was not until later in my beginning science education that I was to learn that just about every damn thing on Earth is a hydro carbon, or at least contains one or the other, including you and me. We are awash in the stuff. I have recently been considering going back to college for some chemistry classes, and have already began to study chemistry again as a hobby. The ways in which hydrogen and carbon can be mixed and matched is absolutely incredible.

I would think chemists would be the toughest of all audiences for a presenter to sell to when it comes to the ending of the modern age by way of peak oil.

RC

Roger and Dr Bob - I forgot to answer that part of Bob's question. I set out to be as controversial as possible:

Raising doubts about the IPCC findings
Pro nuclear
Against bio-fuels, CCS and hydrogen
Slamming the UK government
Warning of impending doom

I was prepared to be given a very hard time indeed but by in large the response was very muted and in the main were supportive. Its possible that the "public" at large are now less secure in their past belief systems than they were a few months ago.

There were some good questions:

One on algal bio diesel that Heading Out would have liked. I need to be more careful in condemning all temperate latitude bio-fuels when my focus is really on ethanol.

One on global U reserves - which I find I am still unable to answer - enough U for 50 years or 500 years, I don't know.

One on Hydrogen fuel cells from my host. The Scottish / UK government are still supporting fuel cell research and I don't know why, firmly believing that it is simpler to put electricity in a battery. I am a fan of V2G and would rather see pilot V2G projects being rolled out linked to off shore wind than spending money on what I regard as the impossible dream - but I may be wrong.

One good question on how to get the ideas I set forth in front of policy makers and to force them to actually debate these issues.

Alas, Gordon Brown is off to the Middle east again to beg for more oil to combat global warming. He has now extended his insanity to beg the Arabs to invest billions in expanding their oil production capacity whilst implementing policies to dump the oil price and the income upon which said expansion would be based.

GB is proving to be a major enigma for me - swinging between hero and zero on a weekly basis. His problem is running several diametrically opposed policies and until he gets that sorted - trying to be all things to all people, he is ultimately destined to fail.

One argument you didn't come forward with from the anti-AGW camp is that much of the warming we will experience has less to do with much higher levels of C02 than it does with stabilization of the climate from emissions already emitted. I did a quick search and found one graph that I will have to note as notional for this discussion;

I was prepared to be given a very hard time indeed but by in large the response was very muted and in the main were supportive.

A number of reasons for that, including;

- less traffic at this site right now (a number of reasons for that, too)
- the day is still quite young in other parts of the world
- climate change was not the main thrust of the article
- people who have provide serious counterpoint to you on this subject in the past may assume (rightly or wrongly) that further information won't make a difference with you

Its possible that the "public" at large are now less secure in their past belief systems than they were a few months ago.

Such a tiny peephole into the opinion of the "public at large" hardly allows such a conclusion to be considered valid. Such a comment from you is not conducive to gaining support for your overall analytic approach and conclusions. People may simply choose to let you have your belief system, without regard to studies (etc, etc) that push, for example, the cosmic ray theory off the scope of substantive scientific findings. You've arbitrarily chosen 1998 as your starting point for the "current" trend, though if you chose 1997 or 1999, for example, your "trend" would vanish. So based on such selective data mining and apparent unawareness of effective counter arguments to your other points, your information Climate Change can easily be set aside, and judging from the response, is. The achilles heel of this site IMMHO, that detracts from the mission of sounding the alarm about Peak Oil, is the majority editorial stance on AGW.

OTOH, your information on the dire issues with regard to energy sources is in large part effective in its communication of the problem. Your reliance on nuclear as the primary solution ignores its own potentially mid term resource limitations, so your drawing board is in need of revisitation, especially with the apparent complete exclusion of resources such as geothermal power.

people who have provide serious counterpoint to you on this subject in the past may assume (rightly or wrongly) that further information won't make a difference with you

This reaction is the subject of a recent discussion at realclimate.org

Will, Euan was talking about the response from the chemist audience, not the response from the current TOD audience.

"Such a tiny peephole into the opinion of the "public at large" hardly allows such a conclusion to be considered valid. "

Euan did NOT claim this as some sort of fact, it was one possibility. Your response is nitpicking and is a distraction from the conversation.

When it comes to emotionally charged issues like GW, people need to put their emotions aside and read more carefully before responding.

Your response is nitpicking and is a distraction from the conversation.

A nitpicking comment in and of itself; "distraction" often means "comments that don't support the view that I do".

Please consider providing substance in your future postings.

Who told you that Ice melting will cause the sea to rise?
Have you ever watched ice melt in a glass of water?
The water does not rise. Global warming is good for the World.
People did not cause global warming and cannot prevent it either.
Imagine - Sunny beaches for enjoyment in Alaska, Greenland, and Siberia!!!!
More valuable beach front property.

Good g_d, I hope this is sarcanol.
Much of the Earth's ice isn't floating, after all, and it's hard to see how climate chaos is good for anybody.

On the bright side, the massive forced human migration caused by evacuation of coastal cities, especially in S. Asia, will probably reduce FF usage for awhile since refugees living in tent cities won't be commuting to work.

Nowhere;
You don't put the ice INTO your glass and melt it. It's more like the ice sculpture over the punchbowl, all melting into it.

You're being very funny today!

Bob

Your reliance on nuclear as the primary solution ignores its own potentially mid term resource limitations, so your drawing board is in need of revisitation, especially with the apparent complete exclusion of resources such as geothermal power.

1. What resource limitations for nuclear power?
2. Are you aware of the actual scalability of geothermal? Wind and solar are far more plausible.

One on global U reserves - which I find I am still unable to answer - enough U for 50 years or 500 years, I don't know.

What, seriously? After looking at the Rossing mine data before even getting into tailing enrichment and reprocessing?

Slide 21. Massive investments in nuclear, solar, and wind will accelerate fossil fuel depletion and give us electric power, which is not needed.

We will have spare electric power as the commercial centers, factories and offices close. Electric power does not solve the food production and transport problems. Alternative energy is an oxymoron. We can't get more energy from Mother Earth, nor useful energy from the sun (except passive solar).

It is time to prepare for surviving Peak Oil. In the years to come, we will see massive solar and wind installations as monuments to mass hysteria and collective stupidity. I was just driving in Spain and kept thinking about all of those wind turbines and Don Quixote :)

There are lots of wind turbines and solar panels in Spain, but no massive investment in date trees. Dates will feed the starving, and they are tasty too. Time to change priorities, before it's too late.

Cheers :)

Cliff Wirth

Deleted accidental double post.

RC

Please, how do you do that?

bio1,

If you mean how to delete the text of an accidental double post, I just go to edit (which you can do any time before there is a reply to your post) and delete out the text, and write in the line you see "Deleted accidental double post" and repost it. At least that's what works for me.

RC

Thank you for your response. Is there anyway to totally edit out the second post without the comment? Or can only editors do that?

One of my first posts over two years ago on TOD USA discussed the need to maintain modern structures of organizational large scale long distance coordination. I made the case that IF a nation and in fact the world give up the technology that allows this large scale organizational structure, the possibility of moving to a post oil modern structure will be lost. Even if advances are made in some shop or lab somewhere in the corner of the world, the advance would take years to communicate to the rest of the world. If there is no ability to engage in large scale coordination, the exchange of ideas and technical knowledge slows to a crawl. This is the one thing that cannot be allowed to occur, since then we would be facing the greatest structural catastrophe since the collapse of Rome without the ability to combat it as a group with world reach.

The way in which the worldwide organizational structures, be they governmental, educational, financial, or humanitarian, is to maintain the following:

Command
Control
Coordination
Communication
Cooperation

This is done by maintaining the communication systems of the world (telephone, internet, radio, television, sattelite communication, and early warning radar and sattellite photography (weather and climate watching in particular). It is done by maintaining one of the most central but underestimated advances of the developed nations of the world, a reliable and efficient electric power grid.

The electric power grid is the absolutely indespensible element of a modern culture that we cannot do without.

Cliff Worth says "Massive investments in nuclear, solar, and wind will accelerate fossil fuel depletion and give us electric power, which is not needed."

It is hard to imagine a statement about energy in the modern age that can be more incorrect.

We will absolutely need the electricity. As the developed world moves to the next logical step of electrification of transportation through plug hybrid and electric cars and advanced electrified rail, the power grid will become not only the backbone of home comfort and communications but of transportation as well. As excess electricit is used in the manufacturing and processing of "manufactured fuels" created from carbon recapture and use of hydrogen from methane recapture and hydrogen extracted from water and agriculture byproduct, and an endless array of other technologies, as more people work at home and get their entertainment by way of advanced high speed internet, reliable electric power will become far more important than the "car culture".

I love automobiles. I am the son of mechanic, and was raised in the shops of the automobile culture. I love the "aesthetic" of autos, am a student of the history of the automobile, and a fan of sports and formula car auto racing. I love the age of the great classic cars, and love the advances made in automobiles and in high performance engines.

But if you forced me to choose for the future, either the automobile or the electric power grid, I would not blink before I chose the electric power grid and all it can provide (which is so much more than it has provided to this point)

Alternative energy will require an initial imput of fossil fuel, that is certain. But the alternative is to waste it out the tailpipe in an inefficient way, or waste it in trying to build mile high skyscrapers in Arabia and Dubai, or indoor ski resorts or casinos. The use of fossil fuel in the development of wind and solar is an investment. Many of the Photovoltaic houses built in the 1970's are still producing electricity 30 years later, and the concentrating mirror installations in California are still producing power a third of a century after they are built. The continuing attempt to slander alternative energy with bogus statistics is shameful, but the proof is in the real products that have already been built.

If we can maintain the power, the communication and the organization that the electric power grid provides, I have no fear of a primitive future. The cars, if we have to wipe every one of them off the highway for awhile, we can fix that later if we have the grid. I would miss them, but I would be willing to walk or bike to the train station and take the electric train to wherever it would take me. There is a possible modern future without automobiles. I can't imagine one without an advanced electric grid.

RC

We don't need more electric power, as we will have spare power with commercial centers, factories, and offices closing. We don't need to add more electric power. The grid depends on diesel powered trucks for road and grid maintenance and bringing in parts, cable, pylon repairs, etc.

CJ,
Of course we need electric power, and we will NOT have spare generating supply if the NG, Fission and Coal plants hit constraints from the numerous complexities, fuel supplies or unacceptable emissions/waste streams that they all face.

Electric Trains will reduce the need for great amounts of fossil fuels, a 'Little' of which (compared to our current Commuting Paradise) can still be available for those trucks needed to work on parts of the grid that are down, while Electric Trucks, Trains and Tools can also be used to work on Maintenance of a functioning grid.. but of course that would necessitate the existence of this grid and generating capacity. I don't see ANY way that we don't keep our roads in some way or another. The Automobile herd will be culled, and many extra small highways will possibly be downgraded over time, but the main paths that link our population centers are not going to turn into grassy parkland.

Another piece of a revised structure, though, is that Train Lines and The Grid can also move towards using more common ROW, so that both could serve each other in a paralleled system. This could have an added benefit of making sure neither of these vital systems is as isolated and vulnerable to unobserved decay or vandalism as they are when separate.

You keep pushing this point, but I don't think you've made your case.

Best,
Bob

Hey Bob,

See my comments down the page.

Cliff

The grid depends on diesel powered trucks for road and grid maintenance and bringing in parts, cable, pylon repairs, etc.

You need to get another organ to grind. I've earned my tuition as an HV lineman and we spent very little fuel getting that job done. If we'd need to we could have done without FAR easier than any office-construction crew, paper mill, mine, etc. etc. Electrical lineman work is far more about one man standing at the foot of the pylon tying parts to a handline for the other up the pole on spurs or spikes to install. It is not high rate-of-materials because everything must be done precisely correctly for a dozen reasons. Worker safety. Windstorm survival of the structure. Electrical storm survival of the structure. EMF suppression (and btw that's Electro-Magnetic Field, meaning that splices must be done carefully to avoid generating static interference with commercial/emergency radio communications, and AFAIK has nothing to do with public safety). Thermal loss supression. etc.

[edit: corrected spelling, sorry]

Just a further footnote regarding EMF, electrical transmission lines, and public safety hazards. I tend to think that any possibility of electromagnetic radiation from utility transmission lines has to be a non-issue, particularly when the line is built half-properly, eg. with decent splices which avoid the sort of high-frequency EMF created by arcing at line splices, which is not very difficult. The reason is that in order for an electromagnetic wave to have any effect on an object, the object, eg. a radio antenna, must be at least some significant fraction of the wavelength of the radiation, see old WWII radio sets which had longwire antennas strung across yards and rooftops. The wavelength of the fundamental frequency of a N American AC powerline is "in the order of" [300,000 km/sec] / [60 cycles/sec] = 5,000 km / cycle. For an object to act as a receiver of such a wave, even at 1/4 wavelength, it must be about 1,250 km long, which pretty much rules out people and farm animals. Any "buzz" you hear near a powerline is simply induced 60 hz or slightly greater odd harmonic vibration usually in the loose links between insulators in the strings, and again, is simply a mechanical vibration which causes audio pressure waves in the air and with no electromagnetic component.

Of course, some people like to sue over any little thing they can pay a lawyer to take up...

For an object to act as a receiver of such a wave, even at 1/4 wavelength, it must be about 1,250 km long, which pretty much rules out people and farm animals.

If that were true, then it would be impossible to operate hand-sized transformers at 60 Hz because the secondaries are too small.  This is patently not the case.

Near-field EMFs from power lines can illuminate fluorescent bulbs on the ground below.  There are obvious and easily detectable effects from power lines, and dismissing them on the basis of far-field emissions shows careless thinking at the very best.

If that were true, then it would be impossible to operate hand-sized transformers at 60 Hz because the secondaries are too small. This is patently not the case.

The operation of a power transformer has nothing to do with EM Waves and their wavelengths. This comment is absurd. From what I can gather his statement is true.

Near-field EMFs from power lines can illuminate fluorescent bulbs on the ground below

This is more to do with capacitive coupling than EMW. A small neon lamp does just the same if held close to a live wire.

The magnetic field strength around a linear conductor is inversely proportional to distance.

It seems like many of us are dissidents from either the fossil fuel producing or fossil fuel consuming industries. Makes sense in a way. I love cars and motorcycles too, and I'm a big motorsports fan, for me Formula One and MotoGP. I have no opinion on painting or sculpture, but I can wax poetic all day long on the design and aesthetics of cars and bikes.

I'll also be the first to say we can't afford to drive everywhere. Equestrian enthusiasts don't ride horses to work, do they? Cars are no different.

My wife and I put in a ground-sourced heat pump last year. It is 400% efficient, for heating but requires the use of electricity. This is the future for heating and cooling our homes.

The future for motor vehicles will likely be plug-in hybrids, which will mostly use electricity (since most trips are less than 10 miles).

Thus electricity will be in high demand.

...dates are desirable too...

Retsel

Several months ago, I noted that a high negative rating would indicate that I was on the right track, as I had offended the solar/wind ideologues. I was right.

They offer negative ratings, but no plans for how the electric economy will work. I've asked many times and I'll ask again. If you don't like what I have to say, give me the plans. Not some photo of an electric truck or tractor, I want to see the plans for the infrastructure and how it will all work.

Here's a plan for a network of electric passenger rail through the city of Melbourne, which could with good management carry 25% of all trips taken.

Whaddayaknow, we have it already. Only takes 9% of all trips, 170 million annually, but it took 270 million annually in 1950 when we signals were a guy with a stick pushing a lever, track changes were a guy with a crowbar pushing a track, and communications were rotary dial telephones, plus we had 100km less track, and no underground loop. So with our electronic signals and track changes and rapid communications, plus good management, we ought to be able to manage 540 million trips, easy.

All electric, too, which means it can be all renewably-powered. Well, except for that Stony Point line addon, but that's only a small proportion of the traffic and anyway would cost less than ten million to electrify.

Shall I go on? I mean, how detailed do you want a comment in an article that'll get lost among 500 other comments and the article forgotten in a week?

Your response indicates that you don't get it. A photo of an electric train, tractor, or metro system is not a plan for how the electric economy will function.

The transition to the electric economy is trillions of Euros/dollars and 20 years of planning, development and implementation of infrastructure to tractors, combines, and trucks/highways, as well as millions of solar panels/wind turbines (the infrastructure for the tractors/combines and trucks are not even physically feasible) and the energy to manufacture, transport, and implement this (the energy is not available: that is what Peak Oil is all about). Where is the capital?? It is not available. Where are the plans for this make over??

Where are the plans for this "makeover"?

The same place we put the plans for our network of highways, coal-fired power plants, oil rigs, auto factories, petrol stations, truck companies and so and so forth.

There's no Grand Unifying Plan, there are just zillions of little plans which will be patchworked together rather sloppily, yet somehow things function.

We didn't have a single grand plan for our fossil fuel society, I don't see why we'd need one for a society without fossil fuels.

You remain unpersuaded it seems to me by the simple expedient of ignoring detailed responses you have received, including those from people like electrical engineers expert in what can be done.

You offer no detailed breakdown of what you can't do with electricity, or where you do pass over replies which indicate alternatives.

No-one is going to put the time and effort in to supply the magnum opus you demand, particularly not when you come out with statements such as that electricity lines cannot be maintained using electric vehicles, and attract responses from experts that electric vehicles are in fact very well suited to the task, but his information makes no difference to your claims, and you just do not acknowledge it.

On the contrary, if you wish to maintain your claim that a technological society cannot be maintained with greatly reduced liquid fuel inputs, then the onus is on you to produce a master-thesis showing exactly what you see as breaking down, and what cannot be replaced.

I am no fan of the ratings system, but I suspect in this case it reflects your continual ex cathedra judgements on the subject without the benefit of the slightest substantiation for your thesis.

Hey Dave,

See my comments above.

Cheers,

Cliff

Euan,
Slide 11.
It looks to me as if a decent programme of insulating houses + CHP would restrict the peak winter gas demand.

What's needed is to chase the peak down in future years so that the use of expensive gas storage can be minimised.

Questions:

Where did the projection figures for this chart come from?

and

Any thoughts on the cost of a marginal stored therm of peak winter gas in 2015?

It is this cost that we should be using in working out the economics of home insulation,

BobE

BobE
Euan introduced the charts & projections earlier
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4188
As this appears to be about future price, your points on keeping prices lower by reducing peak winter demand (and its cost)are pertinent.
Euan in earlier story explicitly left a list of topics needing more attention, including gas storage and the global spike occurring because of N hemisphere winter consumption. His list was headed by

In developing gas supply scenarios it is also very important to be aware of the cyclic seasonal nature of gas demand.

Bob - I spent months working on a UK gas post and forecast model that has been sitting in the TOD Q for over a year. Its a fairly complex process to forecast the interplay of annual cycle, gas storage, demand in relation to price and availability of supply - indigenous, pipe and LNG.

The model presented incorporates an agreeable decline rate and increase in demand. The latter I think has to be wrong since it now seems clear that high price will reduce demand going forward as will the unintended culling of the elderly and poor that will flow from the governments lack of any form of sensible energy policy. Hence I will have to redo the model. I can't recall if I ever mentioned to BERR that £50K would act as a real catalyst and motivator here. At a certain point you just run out of motivation and energy doing this sort of stuff for free.

One consequence of this model is that we end up importing gas in equal amounts all year - in the summer months to fill storage. And this I imagine will erode or remove price differentials between summer and winter gas which I presume paid for storage construction. Right now I think this issue needs very close examination since if this is correct, large sums may be spent now building storage that will soon become unprofitable.

I reached a similar conclusion with LNG - right now with Langeled we don't need too much LNG. Then we will suddenly need lots. And then we won't be able to source supply on the market - I must get that post finished while the lights are still on.

With respect to your question about insulation. I think the cost / benefit needs to be worked out on the basis of how much energy would be saved each winter, how this would reduce energy costs keeping individuals on the right side of energy poverty and the savings to the trade balance. Savings on the cost of building storage would be one additional argument. Right now we are importing increasing amounts of ever more expensive gas / energy and are simply pissing it away. It is criminal.

There's been much rhetoric from the government about energy efficiency - has there been much action so far?

Welcome back, Euan.
I am not too surprised that your motivation is flagging - I wondered if you had decided to chuck it and stay in France, in partibus agricolarum, as it seems that nothing is to be done until it is too bloody late.

I'd see recession turning into depression, with the consequent fall in oil prices obscuring the realities of our energy situation for several critical years.

The Chinese are perhaps likely to be the first out of depression, as they shift their economy from export back towards a more command style economy with heavy investment in infrastructure.

As oil prices then rise to more accurately reflect shortages, the UK at least is unlikely to be able to afford any substantial quantity, and will be hard pressed to build out renewable and nuclear infrastructure.

It seems apparent that a very large quantity of deaths from hypothermia are certain in the UK.
My own focus has now shifted to trying to figure ways to rig emergency insulation so that some people will survive who otherwise might not:
http://energy-futures.blogspot.com/2008/09/one-warm-room.html

It is apparent that nothing is being done with any urgency in the UK, and that we are going to maintain a vain attempt at BAU as long as possible, and indeed after it has become impossible.
In the UK we would appear to have all the ingredients for Civil War, with wide ethnic and religious divides which are papered over in prosperous times.

In the circumstances without entering into the dispute on the reality or otherwise of GW, it appears that we are not putting into place the preconditions for doing anything effective about it, as we would need a functioning economy and technological resources to deal with it, and both are likely to be in short supply.
You don't worry about whether your cancer diagnosis is accurate when someone is threatening you with a gun in a hold-up.

I would encourage you to try to re-enthuse yourself to analyse our current crisis, as our only hope is that at some stage people will wake up and turn to those who have accurately documented current events, rather as Roubini is now in great demand after having been marginalised for years.

Thanks for your efforts and this article.

FWIW I think 'one warm room' will catch on, or even a large room partitioned with curtains. However if combustion heated smoke and carbon monoxide alarms may be essential.

I'm working on the assumption that much of the time the only heat that will be available will be from cooking, light bulbs, body heat etc.
We will have to get used to being a lot chillier than we have been accustomed to, but I agree the main issues are adequate ventilation and condensation prevention - the spores from mould can have serious health consequences.

At Maplins they had electrically heated vests, run by batteries.
Something like that might be an option to prevent the old getting seriously cold, together with Kotatsu desks:
http://www.unpluggedliving.com/keeping-warm-tips-japanese-kotatsu/

We have to consider new Seismo-electromagnetic (SEM) phenomenon in oil deposits.
Huge number of the exploration dry wells is a root of world economic depression.Today, as it was decade years before, oil companies have drilled mostly dry exploration wells. Drilling success rate doesn’t overcome 25% on average. It means that three dry wells go to waste from four drilled. It means also that discovery occurs much slowly then if success rate significantly rise. Using Seismo-electromagnetic (SEM) phenomenon in oil deposits it is possible to triple world oil discoveries every year with 75% success rate.
Initiating of SEM phenomenon to detect of hydrocarbon deposits has the steps of simultaneously action an electromagnetic field and a seismic wave in investigated geological region so that an electromagnetic signal originates by vibrating of hydrocarbon deposit surface excited by the electromagnetic field and travels from the surface, recording the electromagnetic signal together with transient electromagnetic process in the region, and making a conclusion about a hydrocarbon deposit based on the recorded electromagnetic sign together with the transient electromagnetic process. For details see www.phenomenon-in-oil-accummulation.weebly.com

We already know where there is lots of oil in the world - what is important from a Peak Oil point of view is the rate at which it can be extracted at a profit.

Euan states that the world decline rate of existing wells is around 4.5%, this is only because we are constantly adding new productive wells. The flow from an individual well is controlled by the geology but the total flow from a field or the world (and any peaking) is controlled by the amount of investment, not geology at all.

When an oil filed is saturated with profitable wells no more are drilled and finally the decline rate is determined by the geology, not above ground things like investment - it is only then we see the real decline rate, examples would be the North Sea ~9%, Mexico >20%, some Norwegian fields >30%.

This has major implications for the UK since we now have to rely on imports. If the exporting nations do not invest quickly enough the ELM decline rate will be catastrophic even if we could afford to pay for it, which I doubt!

Please see www.binaryseismoem.weebly.com

If we discover in three times more oil fields every year, will it affect on total flow or not?

NO - you don't understand peak oil, the only thing that will increase the flows is investment in profitable oil wells.

There is still huge amounts of known oil in the USA - if it was profitable we could mine it like coal and recover 100% of it, but it isn't because it isn't profitable at current prices.

Euan I think your best idea is the energy cliff and the notion (Slide 19) that primary energy sources with high EROEI must underpin a modern economy. However I think you muddy the waters (Slides 15,16) by taking on man-made global warming. If recent weird and contradictory weather in Australia is anything to go by any statistical prediction must have wide confidence bands. There seems to be an inconsistency between between advocating short term unrestrained fossil fuel use (Slide 16) while noting that the gas market (Slide 11) has failed to get alternatives ready in time. If anything that suggests saving some fossil fuels for later GW or not.

I wonder if an alternative approach could be energy mix time paths that point out the implications of different parts of the chart.

I would agree. You may be right on global warming but I think it detracts from the main message. Perhaps if you can stress that the energy crisis is much more urgent than climate "change" you would get through. As it is you can see the storm of comments and arguments which are relating to a peripheral part of your presentation.

That's what happens when you mix science with religion. :)

I would agree. You may be right on global warming but I think it detracts from the main message. Perhaps if you can stress that the energy crisis is much more urgent than climate "change" you would get through. As it is you can see the storm of comments and arguments which are relating to a peripheral part of your presentation.

As someone who in large part works within what some here might describe as the"climate change industry," I am certainly prepared to entertain the idea that peak oil might be more important than AGW, and regardless would fully support Euan in his contention that energy efficiency is more important for both than pie-in-the-sky ambitions regarding CCS or biofuels.

BUT, not liking the ways in which scientific knowledge of AGW is being used to pursue CCS, biofuels and other misguided ventures, or indeed not liking those people who advance these agendas through combinations of selfish vested interest and sheer breathtaking stupidity, is NOT in itself a reason to reject the vast body of scientific endeavour now backing our knowledge of AGW.

I have thought a lot of Euan's writing on TOD to be compelling. But when I observe inclination towards the classical "greenhouse skeptic" cherry-picking of a body of data and research with which I am well acquainted, I then wonder does he have a similarly one-sided approach to data selection regarding say UK energy security, an area I know very little about from other sources?

The oil part of the above presentation is very good but the climate part is conceptually wrong. Under natural climate change, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was never higher than 300 ppm during the interglacial warm periods

CO2, CH4 and Temperature over 450 Kyears

We are now at 385 ppm. Hansen's target is now 350 ppm as a first step.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081030_Target.pdf

Once the Arctic summer sea ice is gone around 2013

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20081002_seaice_pressrelease.html

the weather on the Northern hemisphere will change dramatically and the world would want to get that sea ice back as quickly as possible which means not only do we have to reduce CO2 emissions but we also have to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. The real drama unfolding now is that by the time the world realizes what global warming really means we may have diesel shortages and all those rail and clean energy projects will get stuck. #1 priority is therefore to pass legislation in Parliaments to set aside oil and gas for these absolutely vital projects. We are now gobbling up our last precious oil barrels for consumption and not for investments in carbon free energy and transport systems. We will fall down the energy ladder.

When the models are jiggled so that we have the observed melting of Arctic ice: how do the models then play out? Not obvious to me. Does the reduced albedo of the ocean mean that more energy is absorbed instead of reflected? Or does the increased evaporation cause more snow on the neighboring land and hence more reflection? This question seems important to me because we notice that temperatures rose through the previous interglacial (which was warmer than this one), then crashed: so it seems natural to look for some switch that got flipped.

Dear Matt, you keep on ignoring the information and the questions we have sent you on the issue. Just for a starter:

Kouwenberg, L, Wagner, R, Kurschner, W and Visscher H, 2005. Atmospheric CO2 fluctuations during the last millenium reconstructed by stomatal frequency analysis of Tsuga heterophylla needles, Geology, 33: 33-36.

Having a crystallized view of reality is not very helpful in these times of social distress. Much less when it is used to push political agendas.

Are you claiming this to be the most reliable study on CO2 levels in the interglacial period? If so, on what basis? If not, then why did you post it, as there are many different techniques available that do not show CO2 levels above 300ppm during that timeframe?

CO2 is not bad for the atmosphere. It is great for plant growth. Plants produce oxygen from CO2.
Global warming is not harmful to the earth.
It is all made up to cause people to spend money on new technology.
Just think of all the benefits of global warming......
Less heat needed in the winter, more beaches up north, more land available for farming, etc.

I can see where you are coming from, nowhere.

Nowhere Man
Author: John Lennon; Lead vocal: John Lennon

He's a real Nowhere Man,
Sitting in his nowhere land,
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
Doesn't kave a point of view,
Knows not where he's going to,
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Matt - i've been meaning to respond to you all day - but i've been paralysed by all the stinging comments. I didn't know this was such a controversial subject;-)

I'm glad you liked the oil part at least.

I believe the data you present is from Vostok where the snow accumulation rate means it takes thousands of years to form glacial ice from snow and firn owing to the very low accumulation rate. I know that the claim is often made that ice cores provide a record of past atmospheric composition. I tend to disagree since there are a number of processes that may modify compositions:

Air diffusion through firn, especially high density firn close to bubble lock off conditions
Air expulsion due to snow compaction
Fractionation and distillation of air in the firn

If you read some of the early papers on ice core work you'll see that they talk about mean trapping ages of the bubbles - a detail that is forgotten by subsequent workers who have tended to treat the data as unique atmospheric compositions. I see the Vostok data as a proxy / running average for atmospheric compositions in which much of the noise may get smoothed out and which may contain spurious time off sets between the different variables that are being measured.

2013 is just 4 years away - hopefully we will both be around to see what happens. I guess you believe that we will see a resumption of melt area extension. I suspect we will see a continuation of the recovery we saw this year.

I think we agree strongly with each other that national governments need to greatly expand sustainable energy and transportation systems. I'm just wondering if there is anyone here who agrees with me that burning fossil fuels to combat global warming is a bad idea?

Euan - "but i've been paralysed by all the stinging comments. I didn't know this was such a controversial subject;-)"

Are you kidding? You didn't know that the denier misinformation that you posted in that slide was controversial?

What you posted is almost copied from the thoroughly debunked "The Great Global Warming Swindle". If you want to see the problem with your post here are two lists of your arguments that are debunked with direct links to the peer reviewed science.

Spot the recycled Denial Series
http://bravenewclimate.com/spot-the-recycled-denial-series/
"Professor Barry Brook holds the Foundation Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and is Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide.

He has published two books and over 130 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and regularly writes opinion pieces and popular articles for the media. He has received a number of distinguished awards in recognition of his research excellence, which addresses the topics of climate change, computational and statistical modelling and the synergies between human impacts on Earth systems."

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-...

One of the main problems is not that there is not enough carbon that we can burn but the very real problem of the positive feedbacks that we are triggering:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2008/04/gloomy_emissions_dat...
"Methane is a far more effective global warmer than carbon dioxide and last year saw another 27 million tonnes of it in the atmosphere after a decade of no change (click methane graph left for longer term trend graph).

There have been some concerns that a warmer Earth could trigger a huge release of methane from deposits in Arctic permafrost.

”We’re on the lookout for the first sign of a methane release from thawing Arctic permafrost,” says NOAA’s Ed Dlugokencky. “It’s too soon to tell whether last year’s spike in emissions includes the start of such a trend.”"

There is absolutely enough carbon there to really start heating the atmosphere.

i've been paralysed by all the stinging comments. I didn't know this was such a controversial subject;-)

I don't believe that, since you explicitly said,

I set out to be as controversial as possible:

Raising doubts about the IPCC findings
Pro nuclear
Against bio-fuels, CCS and hydrogen
Slamming the UK government
Warning of impending doom

When a commenter is "as controversial as possible", we call them a "troll". The same ought to apply to an article writer.

If you read some of the early papers on ice core work you'll see that they talk about mean trapping ages of the bubbles - a detail that is forgotten by subsequent workers who have tended to treat the data as unique atmospheric compositions.

Your assertion is stunningly innacurate, and easily rebuked with something as simple as a Google Scholar search - I have used "firn closure age" here, but there are plenty of other search terms that could be similarly illuminating. At the European Geosciences Union general assembly this year I counted over three hundred people in the audience of the session covering ice core gas bubbles. It is hardly a "forgotten" field of endeavour, and covers essential all groups active in ice core research in recent years:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=firn+closure+...

I think we agree strongly with each other that national governments need to greatly expand sustainable energy and transportation systems. I'm just wondering if there is anyone here who agrees with me that burning fossil fuels to combat global warming is a bad idea?

I'm also in agreement with you here. But we are landed with CCS through a politically powerful coal lobby scrambling to save its arse, and with biofuels through opportunistic behaviour of also politically well connected corn and sugar cane producers among others. It is frustrating, but why take it out on climate science?

As a geologist, take a close look at those who still advocate an expanding earth in the face of the massive, largely internally consistent body of evidence for plate tectonics, and at the nature of the rearguard action they have fought over the last four decades. Many parallels.

Euan,
Slide 24(GDP/energy use boe); this seems to show that when oil prices rise, a fairly dramic shift in improving energy use for unit of GDP.

The argument that; "When fossil fuels start to decline, it is likely so will GDP and this will likely collapse the global economy". is ignoring replacement of FF energy by non-FF energy, and an improvement in GDP/energy use.
Surely, FF decline will result in higher FF prices as occurred in 1970's and a similar 350%improvemnt in GDP/boe from 2500 to 9400.

What is the evidence that there will be an energy cliff, rather than a continued gentle decline. Only oil is likely to decline by 2-8% per year in next 20years. NG and coal will be much slower, while nuclear, and wind energy are increasing.

Neil - its quite important to understand the reason for the apparent leap in GDP in 1970. I gave a list of options and no doubt all may contribute. My gut feel however is the FIAT Mirage may be one of the main causes - in other words a paper based trading bubble that may be about to collapse.

Slide 22 gives a feel for the scale of the challenge to replace declining FF with nuclear and renewables. When I first read Olduvai I thought this cannot be correct because technology will save us. There are alternate views on this. Some say that man is resourceful and technology will save us, others that we are animals and will destroy each other in the fight for the last barrel. Highly respectable people on both sides of this argument.

I continue to act optimistic whilst inside I am deeply pessimistic as indicated by the 5% chance I have allocated to a sensible course of action being followed form this point.

When I first read Olduvai I thought this cannot be correct because technology will save us.

You're undercutting your own argument if you're tying it to Duncan's Olduvai predictions.

His argument has already been shown to be wrong by his own criteria. More importantly, the argument is based on a statistical trick known as Simpson's Paradox, meaning it would have no validity even if the data hadn't done the opposite of what he'd predicted.

Stick to expensive oil&gas causing deficits; that will convince people far more than throwaway slides on discredited theories.

More importantly, the argument is based on a statistical trick known as Simpson's Paradox, meaning it would have no validity even if the data hadn't done the opposite of what he'd predicted.

Simpson's paradox has nothing to do with Duncan's Olduvai preditions.

Simpson's paradox applys when you are combining two data sets of different sizes.
http://intuitor.com/statistics/SimpsonsParadox.html

I fail to see the relevance to Duncan.

But to quote you from before

For illustrative purposes, imagine there are 10 rich and 10 poor people. Each rich person uses 100 energy, and each poor person uses 10, so average energy use is (10x100+10x10)/20 = 55 energy per person.

Some time later, populations have increased, so there are 15 rich people and 45 poor people. Each person is now using 50% more energy than before - 150 for the rich and 15 for the poor - so average energy is (15x150+45x15)/60 = (2250+675)/60 = 49 energy per person.

Per capita energy is down 10%, but every person has seen their energy use rise 50%. It's just that there are more poor people than rich people now.

This really has no relevance to what Duncan is predicting.Duncan clearly states he believes there will be an absolute fall both in population and in energy.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/sixteen-two/xvi-2-93.pdf

His argument has already been shown to be wrong by his own criteria.

True, Duncan's theory has failed to meet the strict critrea he set for himself.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/sixteen-two/xvi-2-93.pdf

The Olduvai Theory states that the life expectancy of industrial civilization is approximately 100 years: circa 1930-2030. It is defined by the ratio of world energy production and population (e). Four postulates follow:
1. The exponential growth of world energy production ended in 1970.
2. Average e will show no growth from 1979 to circa 2008.
3. The rate of change of e will go steeply negative circa 2008.
4. World population will decline proximate with e.

Namely he failed on number two as e has shown some small growth in recent years.

But as Euan points out Duncan wasn't off by much.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3565

And e growing slightly in the past few years does nothing to preclude a "cliff" event. In fact Web Hubble Telescope has shown it may make the cliff event worse.
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-we-cant-pump-faster.html

Furthermore I wonder if Duncan just missed one small detail, and his theory could be salvaged with one small addtion.
"It is defined by the ratio of net world energy production and population (e)."

regarding your statistical trick....

Have you any evidence that the proportion of poor people are expanding more rapidly than the proportion of rich people?

In your link you start off with 10 rich and 10 poor, but that was never the case.

In particular, it is my opinion that UK and EU energy policies that are focussed upon CO2 emissions instead of energy efficiency

I recently read that here in Poland they have a situation where at some point they will need to buy Carbon Credits on the market to compensate for the old energy generation infrastructure inherited from the no worry years of Communism. As I heard this it occurred to me what a wonderful deal they got for getting into the EU. Pay to be in it and then pay its members to be up to snuff with the rules set by it where from the word go they are already losers when joining ( non competitive old economic system).

Great way for France to make tons of money.

With alternate energy you don't have the ability to charge others and make money on it. Thus this lets go after CO2 is IMHO a means to do simple things to make money. Alternate Energy is a threat to currently structured economies and big companies in the energy business.

Even Schlumberger started to keenly look at how to make money on CO2, which gives a hint to their approval for this policy.

ReservoirGuy - you touch on an important but rather sensitive subject. I am on occasion accused of being on the payroll of FF companies whilst in fact since I started writing for TOD 2 and half years ago may paid income has been £50.

I am very concerned by the way big business has seized the opportunity to capitalise upon the fear spread through the population by Global warming.

Volvo and Saab build green cars that run on ethanol - probably the least energy efficient modes of transport ever invented.

Shell offer their clean green GTL technology - nat gas converted to synthetic diesel in Qatar and shipped half way round the world. What's clean and green about that?

Virgin Atlantic flying jets on nut oil.

A myriad of alternative energy devices offered to the public so that they can lower their CO2 footprints and feel good - regardless of whether or not they are doing any good at all.

As for C trading - It is so bat shit crazy and opaque I don't understand it. But as you point out it is seen as a way to make money - irrespective of whether or not it is actually doing anyone or the planet any good. I'd have thought that politicians, their advisors and the public at large should have had enough of crazy schemes like this by now.

I guess I need to be at pains to point out that the concerns of the ecologists have been hi-jacked by business and this is not the fault of the ecologists.

excellent overview. spot on about olduvai & i agree with u'r giving % chances to the cycle 2 means-deflation or inflation & the approximate %'s u give.

nice work & good for u getting out there with the word[s]. a little later & it will be tooooo late for that role!

Arrrrrrgh, I am so %&#@$ confused after reading the report. Do I lower my temp to 67? Hook up a hose to my dog? Start making my own soap? Taking cold showers? I mean seriously, the hypothesis is so freak'in grim, and the solutions don't seem to be entirely forthcoming. Let me tell you people, reading this @0121 in the morning after a long day with a 2yr old (who I caught playing with the thermostat, gleefully) is really, really freaking me out.

Come to think of it, I guess I can't really do anything about it tonight, you know? OK, just chill, no sense in taking advantage of assumed Western Civilization excesses.

Goodnight.

-osgo

It appears that paralysis is the writer's desired response. Ignore him.

Begin by reducing your own energy and resource consumption and waste, and follow it up with letters to your elected representatives demanding they initiate and support changes which help further reductions, by renewable energy and the like.

That's all any of us can do, but if a good number - not even a majority, just a loud annoying minority - do it, it'll have a big effect.

Euan,

Lots of very interesting and provocative information, thanks. However, I think one should try to seperate Peak Oil from the debate on Global Warming/Climate Change. One highly controversial and frighteningly complex subject at a time please! I can see why one would want to deal with both of them together, I'm just not sure it's sensible to try. It seems almost foolhardy and Quixotic.

As to the future, I think we will be forced by circumstances to adopt some form of 'command economy' similar to the kind one adopts during wartime, if we are really serious about directing our resources optimally and acting proactively in relation to the obvious challenges we face as a civilization.

Surely, if it's possible to mobilize society for 'total war', we should, in theory, be able to use many of the same methods in our battle to save civilization from potential disaster?

The problem of course is how exactly one does this in peacetime in the absence of war and an obvious and threatening enemy? Fully mobilizing society and its potential to 'fight' an invisible threat, would require a truly concerted and massive propaganda drive. Unfortunately I'm very sceptical that it's possible during peacetime in a 'market democracy'. Though, as we see now, with the virual takeover of the financial system and various bailouts, 'state capitalim' as an alternative to the 'free market' system has come to the fore. One could imagine an even more vigerous version of 'state capitalism' in the future, where resources were controlled and managed, and directed towards mitigating the worst effects of the Olduvai Trap on civilization.

Of course, politically this would require a very different form of capitalism than we've seen for the last thirty or forty years and it's unlikely to be accepted without stiff opposition from entrenched and very powerful interests in society.

However, I think one should try to seperate Peak Oil from the debate on Global Warming/Climate Change. One highly controversial and frighteningly complex subject at a time please! I can see why one would want to deal with both of them together, I'm just not sure it's sensible to try. It seems almost foolhardy and Quixotic.

Writerman, at one level I agree with this and at TOD we have in fact skirted around this issue for very many months. At another level, in the UK we now have a Minister for Energy and Climate Change - and for me, enough is enough. Our government seems intent on locking the two issues together in an ever more chaotic descent into the abyss.

For months now I have listened to politicians, bankers and industrialists saying that they had no way of knowing that house prices would not go on rising for ever and that we had just experienced the greatest expansion of leveraged, uncollateralised credit ever. This of course is just total and utter bull shit. They are either lying or they are stupid - perhaps both.

On the climate - energy issue a recent report in the UK was actually forecasting 30,000 excess deaths this year from energy poverty - and I don't believe that was factoring in the possibility that we may be in line for a series of somewhat colder winters.

Right now, our politicians can stand up and say they are following expert advice provided to them by their own agencies - the UK MET office for one. Its going to get warmer, we have limitless supplies of energy, lets use some of that energy to sequester CO2.

I am simply providing an alternative scenario for them to consider.

Population growth and a growing elderly population is of course a serious issue for us all - especially considering all our pensions just got kicked into the long grass. Maybe our government isn't so daft after all?

Euan - is it possible to access the graph used in your first slide in higher resolution? It would be extremely helpful for a talk I'm giving on Peak Oil next week.


It is hard to keep up-to-date on price, but this ends up being deceptive. The numbers suggest that the fall in price is not all that different from others percentage-wise, but the fall has been larger than that and so is different. The trend in blue would then not be at all predictive.

Chris

The chart is made by Chris Vernon. I believe it is month average data that are plotted - smoothing out the highs and lows - and the chart will be at least 1 month behind.

Many thanks.

This is just an aside, but one of the things that concerns and surprises me most about many of the people who post on TOD, despite their obvious intelligence and educational level, is how many of them appear to believe in plausability and efficacy of individual responses to the challenges we face as a society.

I don't really understand this attitude. I think it's a comic-book, science-fiction response, that's emotional, counterproductive and probably irrational. There is no individual response to the potential collapse of civilization in my opinion, only a concerted and collective political response. Mad Max, is, actually, mad.

There is no individual response to the potential collapse of civilization in my opinion, only a concerted and collective political response. Mad Max, is, actually, mad.

I tend to agree with this based on my observation that trying to communicate this problem from the bottom is very very difficult and SLOW !!!

The message is accepted by the majority when it comes from the top. If we try to do this from the bottom it may be too late.

Strongly disagree. People have been trying for decades to bring some sense into governments. A book titled "Motorways versus democracy" was published about the decades of unsuccessful campaigning against motorway building in the uk. That was in 1974 - and 34 years later the wasteminster regime are still insisting on more roads and even runways even as the airlines go bust. And the other week I attended a FoE presentation of their energy policy and that is no more sane than that of our "leaders".

Trying to get governments to do something sensible was a useless waste of time. And it is now too late for it to be a waste of time. Like a captain of a Titanic they will insist on sailing right into the iceberg even though we see it seconds away. Friends of the Earth will still be campaigning about CO2 the day before the lights go out forever and food riots set in.

Unless there is some stupendously improbable breakthrough, a massive population crash is now inevitable within the next few years. And no elected government can present a policy which honestly addresses this reality that most of its electorate are going to starve to death.

There are no longer any even remotely nice solutions. The least un-nice one is to get together with other competent, honourable co-operative people and prepare one's communal lifeboat with post-industrial survival skills and so on. (Un-co-operative dishonourable people aren't going to be around for long anyway in the new reality where truth will quickly prevail over the sort of pretence on which most "wealthy"/"talented" politicians and lawyers and corporatists thrive.)

writerman, you said "There is no individual response to the potential collapse of civilization in my opinion, only a concerted and collective political response."

Of course if that's true, then it cuts both ways, right? If I can afford to buy and drive a Ferrari or a Porsche or a Hummer, then my individual response will certainly NOT change the potential collapse of the civilization, so I can have a great time during the collapse without feeling guilty. :-)

This is of course exactly what Dick Chaney said when he stated that conservation may be a sign of great personal virtue but was nothing to base national energy policy on.

I have made the case several times that the U.S., Europe and Japan can do virtually nothing about "peak oil" because we are declining as a percent of the oil consuming market already, and declining as a percent of the total world greenhouse gas emissions too, by the way.

Anything we try to do as a nation to reduce consumption (and that includes the U.S., Japan, or any of the European nations) is simply to try to save our own economy and will have little effect on the world outcome. There is one very, very important exception: Technology. If we develop good alternative energy technology, we can share it world wide, where it will be copied even in the developing world. Our technologists in the Western developed nations may just be the hope of the continuation of the modern age, if your for that.

Anyway, to your term "the potential collapse of civilization" is just that, "potential". That has been with us from the first day of the birth of our civilization, when it was even more fragile than now, so that's nothing to greatly worry about. It's like death and taxes, it's always with us, and always will be.

RC

I think we need a concerted political response. For several years I use to collect statistics on the mention of "peak oil" and "oil depletion" from several republican/conservative web sites on my blog. An example:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2005/06/oil-for-spew.html

What I found was that for a few years conservatives would only really rally around one oil-related topic (apart from anti-global-warming). Remember the "Oil for Food" scandal with Iraq? Good god, the number of posts on that subject was incredible. I am afraid that we may not get this half of the political spectrum to ever understand oil depletion since they are so susceptible to fake talking points (see "Drill, Baby, Drill).

For now, we need to get rid of politicians like Norm Coleman (Senator from Minnesota) who basically wasted years and years of senate hearings heading a commission investigating the Oil For Food program. What a despicable and corrupt politician he is. Remember, for a while, arguing over the "Oil For Food scandal" was THE national energy policy of the USA. How pathetic.

"...believe in plausibility and efficacy of individual responses to the challenges we face as a society."

I am coming to this same realization.

I have dismissed the Homestead option as creating an Island in the middle of chaos.

I recently concluded that my community based focus is just creating a slightly larger island.

Then it quickly becomes an issue of just ever increasing size of the island.

Can it metastasize fast enough to be a viable solution or is it doomed from the start?

dont know

Some of us don't really believe that individual responses are going to do much. However, speaking for myself and hopefully some others, we don't take ourselves seriously enough to believe that it is necessary for us to change society as a whole. Really speaking for myself now, part of maturing (for me anyway) is realizing that I can only change myself. I can ask others to change too, but they are under no obligation to follow along. So please don't mistake my/our focus on the individual for the mistaken belief that individual responses are sufficient to produce large-scale change. For me, the joy of life is that I CAN change myself, and learn more, and do things differently tomorrow. Hope that helps you understand "this attitude" a little better :)

Why should you be surprised?

This is an attitude that has been drilled into the American psyche through almost four decades of incessant right-wing and libertarian propaganda. There's a self-reinforcing loop here:

Bad government→People don't trust government→People become indifferent and don't invest time and effort to make government better (or conservatives strive to intentionally make government bad)→Bad government

In the 1970s the conservatives began tapping into something that was already very much a part of the American ethos, the "rugged individualism" and "imperial self" that was made an integral part of the American character by early cultural figures such as Whitman, Thoreau and Emerson.

Robert Heilbroner had this to say on the subject:

Let us commence with the element of freedom--or rather, since freedom is a social condition and not an individual behavioral property, with the idea of individuation, i.e., the desire or capacity of individuals to seek lifeways other than those imposed on them by the prevailing structure of social interests. That such a drive to individualation also exists at a primary level (although its manifestation comes slightly later in the rhythm of infant maturation) seems well established by psycholanalytic investigation; and from all historical evidence, there seems no doubt that the life chances of the individual are vastly enlarged by the rise of market society. On the other hand, we must not ignore the constrained behavior that is required to achieve this increase in autonomy.

Robert L. Heilbroner, Behind the Veil of Economics

And market (capitalist) societies have had their successes, not only in terms of enhanced individual freedom but also in terms of national wealth accumulation. As Heilbroner goes on to point out

...what capitalism has brought: in 1750 the level of material well-being in Europe was roughly equal to that of the parts fo the world we today call underdeveloped. By 1930 the level was four times higher; today it is seven times higher.

Heilbroner has this to say about the mechanism by which capitalism has achieved such great wealth creation:

Under the regime of capital, even in its early period when technology assumes the simple forms of mechanization, the effort to discover opportunities for accumulation through alterations in the mode of manufacture becomes the objective of a thousand economic generals, not to mention ten thousand soldiers with field marshals' batons in the knapsacks--the Arkwrights and Watts and Wilkinsons of all nations. A generalized receptivity to technical change readies the economic actors for experimentation, rather than setting them against it as in the perior of guild restrictions and anti-innovative artisan outlooks. Thus, while it is pointless or foolish to suggest that the Bessemer converter, the Bonsack cigarette machine, the Edison lamp, or the Otto gasoline engine had to appear when they did, or that close substitutes would have taken their place had they not, we can confidently assert that inventing itself is systematically stimulated by capitalism.

But beginning in the 1960s a radical cult formed around the personality of Milton Friedman and things got out of hand. The part about "constrained behavior that is required to achieve this increase in autonomy" was not a part of the extreme ideology promoted by Friedman. Morality was purged from his theories, which came to dominate American economic, social and political life. Thus today "capitalist" means something very different than what it did for Adam Smith. For Smith a "capitalist" was someone (in theory at least) who desired to "better our condition" and created capital (wealth) for not only himself but for the nation as well. Today a "capitalist" in theory can be little more than a sociopath, destructive to society and to himself, whose desire is not to create wealth but to accumulate wealth, all moral considerations having been purged from contemporary economic theory.

Oddly enough, another thing that has been purged from mainstream contemporary economics, something that Smith was most cognizant of, is the issue of resource limitations and the eventual probable demise of capitalism. As Heilbroner explains:

Thus the logic of accumulation of early capitalism was emphatically not one of indefinite growth, but rather of growth limited by finite, exhaustible investment possibilities...

In a country which has acquired that full complement of riches which the nature of its soil and climate, and its situation with respect to other countries, allowed it to acquire; which could therefore advance no further, and which was not going backward, both the wages of labor and the profits of stock would probably be very low.

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Downsouth,

Whilst studying political theory at university Smith and Marx kept coming up. This was around the time that Keynes was being thrown in the ditch and Adam Smith was being dragged, kicking and screaming into the glare of the spotlight along with the prophets of the Chicago School.

Was surprised me and disconcerted me was that very few of my teachers had actually read Smith and Marx, let alone we students. They had read authors who had 'explained' or written critiques, but actually going to the source texts and reading them carefully seemed like a novel approach.

Unfortunately I read Adam Smith during my winter holiday and was shocked to find that he wasn't an ultra-liberalist or Friedmaniac at all! Especially if one analysed his arguments and terminology in their historical context. I gained the distinct impression that his ideas were being prostituted, bastardized and misrepresented for purely ideological and political ends.

In retrospect I should have kept my mouth shut tight when I returned to school. But being headstrong and barely out of my teens and having an ability to memorize chapter and verse to support my arguments and 'defence' of Smith and to a lesser extent Marx, I launced myself into a one boy, public, campaign to 'rehabilitate' both of them in my department.

I was naive enough to believe that this would be seen in the spirit of an acceptable intellectual challenge without malice. I never dreamed this would be seen as a frontal attack on almost everything the teachers in the department held most dear. I was surprised to find them so hostile and violently opposed to discussing what was actually written by Adam Smith, as opposed to what they seemed to believe he wrote.

Speaking of deflation (slide 24): I have a take on how we should attack that during the coming period of decline. You can read it at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg7nkx7d_162csvk2rg6, and you can comment on it at my blog grampsgrumps, or here. The summary at the end is:

Central banks need to have the job of fighting deflation as well as inflation. To do this they need to print money and pump it into the economy in a reversible way so that it can be removed when inflation reappears. A simple and automatic possibility will be to use printed money to buy and stockpile (and later sell) durable commodities in their normal ratio of use.

Hi Euan,

I think the main difficulty with the presentation is that it seems to say Kook. A lot of what is said about climate is nonsense which many people will pick up on. Just saying that there has been cooling since 1998 shows a real problem with accepting reality. This distracts from the points about problems with biofuels or CCS and weakens the overall message. In slide 19, you need to include all of your propose solutions in slide 26 on the graph. Some well researched estimates for nuclear power put it over the net energy cliff. Also, your estimate for wind seems low.
Another problem appears in slide 25 where you have investment in energy generation and efficiency together with reduced energy use per capita but yet want the percentage of spending on energy to increase. Either the investments will be successful, and the cost of energy will go down, or there is no point in making them I think.

Chris

Global temperatures appear to have declined slightly from 1880 to 1910, then rose fairly sharply from 1910 to 1940, then declined slightly from 1940 to 1970, then rose quite dramtically up until 1998.

It seems fairly obvious that there is a 60 year cycle here, with 30 years of rising temperatures and 30 years of falling temperatures, but this happens in the context of an overall uptrend.

Based on past performance temperatures are likely to be flat or decline slightly until 2020, and then start on another 30 year leg up.

This says nothing about the causes of the overall trend, or where the trend ends. It just happens to be obvious that there is a sub-cycle in the overall trend.

Anyone making a long term argument about the likely course of temperatures during the 20th century should take into account that we seem to be on a flat bit before another step up.

In Euarn's case, the prudent thing would be to point out that temperatures are likely to remain flat for the next decade or two before (maybe) trending up again, so demand predictions in the medium term should take into the account the likelihood that cold winters will continue with us for the next 20 years.

Pushing the idea that there is no long-term uptrend at all or arguing about the cause of the uptrend is just going to be a red flag that will render many people unable to process the rest of the message.

As far as coal reserves go - we may only have a trillion tonnes of conventional reserves left. But UCG is pretty hot stuff at the moment, and big strides are being made in commercialisation, so don't be suprised if we can get an additional 3-5 trillion tonnes of coal extracted using UCG.

Flow rates will be limited of course, so from a peak oil/peak coal perspective it will not be a "solution". But it does represent a significant source fossil fuel which will still be available in 2100.
T

Global temperatures appear to have declined slightly from 1880 to 1910, then rose fairly sharply from 1910 to 1940, then declined slightly from 1940 to 1970, then rose quite dramtically up until 1998.

It seems fairly obvious that there is a 60 year cycle here, with 30 years of rising temperatures and 30 years of falling temperatures, but this happens in the context of an overall uptrend.

Except that temperatures rose in the 1890s, fell to 1910, rose fairly steadily to 1942, declined to 1950, went up and down until 1975, and have been rising fairly steadily ever since.

And temperatures have been rising since 1998, too.

Courtesy NASA,

Or if you prefer pretty pictures, you could try below for 2007.

NASA tells us that,

"In 2007, a moderately strong La Niña event put a chill on the eastern Pacific Ocean, and the Sun was near the low spot in its 11-year cycle of variability. Nevertheless, global average surface temperature in 2007 was still tied for the second warmest year in the instrumental record compiled by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which goes back to 1880. The record warmest year was 2005, with 1998—now tied with 2007—in second place. The global average temperature anomaly for 2007 was 0.57 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) above the 1950-1980 baseline.

It's always a bummer when your nice theory bumps up against the facts.

I don't know why this denial human-caused global warming nonsense is tolerated here at TOD. We wouldn't tolerate people running around babbling about abiotic oil despite being debunked a thousand times over. I suppose it's simply that climate denial is supported by some TOD editors while abiotic oil isn't.

Shouldn't we be open-minded and allow all wilful ignorance free rein?

Euan and Heading Out can be contoversial if they like. But if they want to hold an audience, it seems silly to be just plain wrong about the facts. People know that the trend in temperature is up and saying the opposite is just distracting. What else is he going to say that is false? The reason for bringing it up is that he does not like CCS, biofuels and fuel cells which he blames on climate policy. But, these technologies can be attacked without larding things up with a bunch a false statements about climate.

In the end, Euan and HO seem to me mainly to be posturing though it is worth it to call them out on the errors over and over again.

Chris

Well I was staying out of this since I usually argue a different approach (which relates to the actual historic evidence of previous warming periods) but I would point out that the United States, which fills a not insignificant space on the planet, is no warmer on average than it was in 1934. The patterns of this warming period seem to be falling into patterns that can be seen from previous historic records, and yes there was species migration as the temperatures changed in the past. Hence it is perhaps more appropriate to discuss the topic as Climate Change, rather than Global Warming.

I learned a while ago on this site, as elsewhere, that I need to provide references when I make a statement, and I provide them. On the other hand making generic ad hominem attacks, which too often seems to be the response from folks such as yourself is not the way to conduct scientific debate. And, just to be mischievous I should point out that I will be legitimately discussing this is a class I give today.

What average do you want? The five year average is above 1934. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

Cherry picking to be contrarian is just silly. Global temperatures are what we need to look at. Pointing out that tendency is you is not ad hominem, it just clears up how TOD tends to lose credibility. I think it is fine that you hold your opinions and support them with such antics. The question was why denialism gets such a hearing when abiotic oil does not. What you do is part of the reason.

Chris

Well let's try the following - starting in the North Central and moving south.
First North Dakota

Then South Dakota

Then Nebraska

Then Kansas

Then Oklahoma

Then Texas

And you get something that is not cherry picking (I could have taken any number of sites in each state and found an equivalent).

Rather than admit to a fact, you change the subject, and throw in a little of the "ad hominem" at the same time. Tsk!

I'm not sure how your plots help. It is warmer recently on average in the lower 48 than in the period around 1934 if we take a 5 year average. Globally, 1934 is not the warmest year. Your statement seems to make no sense unless it is just to stir things up, which is similar to Euan's position that he wants to be as contraversial as possible. That is fine. I take the time to take what both you and he have to say on other subjects seriously and recognize the posturing on this issue. But, when it is labeled TOD, and it someone's first experience, people may not be as choosy and discount the entire message.

Chris

If you wish to disbelieve your eyes, then there is relatively little that we can do to persuade you. The denial of data that does not agree with you is one of the disturbing things that I have found common in this debate. So is the use of emotive words such as antics and posturing. It suggests a weakness to your argument if you feel the necessity of attacking the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself.

What else can we call it but antics and posturing when you post plots like that?

Chris

"global warming"

There's an important part of that phrase which is escaping you.

Posting temperature charts of one particular area and then saying that shows something about global climate makes as much sense as posting oil production charts of one well and then saying that shows something about global oil peaking - or not.

"McPherson, Kansas has had a stable temperature over the last century. Therefore there is no global warming."

"Nigeria increased oil production over the past century. Therefore there is no global peak oil."

Global warming.

Is it wrong to be just a little suspicious of the 'anomaly' graphs like these? Personally I wouldn't want to dispute AGW very much but it does seem that these graphs are statistical artefacts. Why choose 1950-1980 as the baseline? What happens when other timeframes are chosen?

I think Euan Mearns had a shorter time scale in mind and for good reason. Judge for yourselves folks:-

I personally think it is premature to start talking about a cooling trend at this point but another 5 years of temperatures similar to the last 10 would certainly begin to raise some interesting questions. For AGW to be proven valid there will have to be a continuing marked temperature increase over the next few decades. If that fails to materialize then it will be a case of back to the drawing board. Nothing stays "settled" if the data start to refute it.

Hi

I think your data is from metoffice, and they also explain here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.pdf
why it looks so. Strange that you use that data to try to make a point that
they explain in a 2 page booklet, with the opposite conclusion as you.

The last 10 years are warmest ever recorded. Why would 5 more similar be "interesting"?
Then you mention "few decades". Yes, THAT would be different (and surprising). We say 0.6 degrees over 1990ties level
no later than 2030. Thats the IPCC prediction. The warming already in the
pipeline, not yet equilibrated, is around 0,4° until 2100, (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm , chapter 10, p. 749). Even if we stop all GHG emissions today.

The one who lives will see.

take care out there

The last 10 years are warmest ever recorded. Why would 5 more similar be "interesting"?

Because the CO2 level is still inexorably rising and if that is the main driver of climate change it would be reasonable to expect an inexorable rise in temperature rather than a 15 year plateau or slight cooling. As for the last 10 years being the warmest ever recorded it depends on who you listen to. Steve Macintyre of Climate Audit fame (or infamy depending on your point of view) identified an error in the GISS software and once that was corrected 1934 actually became the warmest year on record at least in the United States with more warm years in the top ten being from the 1930s than from the past 10 years. Although the data including the rest of the world showed a different trend he suggested that could be due to problematic record keeping leading to the inclusion of a heat island effect due to growing urbanization:-

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885

If temperatures keep rising in the manner predicted by GCMs that will be a footnote in historical terms. If they don't I suspect that question will be reexamined in detail. The theory will stand or fall based on the data.

You say "if that is the main driver of climate change it would be reasonable to expect"

Thats exactly the point. Science says "no it is not reasonable to expect". Read the above posted
pdf. A year on year variability of 0,3° is not uncommon. A variability in trend,
on a 10 (!) year scale from 0 to 0,3 °/decade is not uncommon. And explained and modelled with ENSO el nino/nina.

But the 20 year trend from 1970-1990 is about 0,15 °/decade
1988-2008 0,16 °/decade
1979-1997 0,15 °/decade

Thats amazing isnt it? No change in trend. So are you ready to bet against me 1000 dollars,
that the average 1999-2018 will be warmer than 1995-2005 (I give you 1998 as a bonus :)?

segeltamp at yahoo dot com

I'm puzzled as to what the disagreement is supposed to be between the two of us? I stated that I think that talking about a cooling trend over the last 10 years is premature precisely because I am well aware that there can be short-term upticks and downticks along the way. Hence why I think another 5 years are needed before interesting questions start to be raised. After another 5 years beyond that with a 20 year trend in place post-1998 it would certainly be more than reasonable to talk about a trend as you yourself point out. On the bet you clearly misunderstand my posture on this. Being from a scientific background I try to look at this stuff dispassionately. I don't have any emotions vested in this so I have zero interest in betting money as if it were some sort of sports contest.

So far as I can tell, that is a land air record though it is not very well documented. Ocean covers most of the Earth so you are missing most of the data with that plot. The GISS plot above does a better job. This is perhaps the reason Euan is deceiving himself. Thanks,

Chris

HadCRUT3 is a land ocean composite similar to that produced by GISS. Both are pretty heavily weighted towards land based thermometers. I like the chart style of the MET office much better and know if I have any queries i can always phone them up.

That particular plot does not reference HadCRUT3 but some other set.

Chris

It is my understanding that the temperature charts that show a temperature decline from 1940 to 1970 would probably need to be corrected to account for a temperature measurement anomaly. This was caused by how the surface water was measured by ships. Previously, ships would measure the water in place, however, starting in 1940 (and until 1970?), ships would drag a bucket on board and measure the temperature there. The wind that the bucket of water was exposed to would have caused evaporation that would have cooled the bucket of water.

Thus, the data before 1970 is likely compromised.

Retsel

A very informative post.

However I beleive that most people who read TOD have by now probably accepted that Peak Oil is about increasingly diminished access to high quality inexpensive fossil fuel.

The fine points of the consequences of this reality and what can and should be done about it must be addressed by society at large.

There is little doubt that BAU and the current underlying paradigm of economic growth must be altered and that civilization as we know must end and that a completely new definition of civilization must be found and that we have to change.

To discuss whether we should be concerened or not about the specifics of Anthropogenic Climate change is to totally miss the elephant in the room. Humans have for some time now been having quite the impact on our basic planetary survival systems. It doesn't take a Phd in Climate Science or Ecology to understand this.

A good way to get a feel for what I mean is to go to one of our national parks, I happen to be fortunate to live between the Florida Everglades and some very ancient coral reefs. I often visit both of these protected natural environments. It has always struck me that there is a very clear demarcation where the protected zones end. To me there is a particularly glaring example of this in the form of the Miccosukee Resort & Gaming Casino on the Edge of the Everglades.

On one side of the demarcation you have alligators, fish, turtles and gorgeous aquatic birds living in relative ecological equilibrium on the other you have civilization (if you can call it that) at it's worst.

To argue whether or not we should address anthropogenic climate ecological change is completely moot because it is BAU that has to be changed.

If you don't believe that you still have your head stuck in the sands of denial.

This is another example of what I am talking about:

The True cost of Economic Growth
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/27/what.matters.huai/index.html

Tend to agree with this and recall exchanges with Greenish many months ago where I believe he was advocating a much smaller global population living on paradise Earth. The average quality of life of mankind needed to be measured over a time span of millions of years. How do we get from here to there?

How do we get from here to there?

Well for starters we don't set the bar so high that it is unatainable by expecting a "paradise" earth.

Then we look in the mirror and recognize that the enemy is "us".

Next we must find a way to unleash the best that human beings are capable of and roll up our sleeves and get to work changing ourselves and our societies.

Last but not least we must be realistic and courageous enough to accept the fact that even if we give it our collective best shot many of us may perish in the transition and even then there is no guarantee of success.

Best wishes for an new age of enligthenment and sustainable societies.

1. the slides are cluttered. Keep things simple, no more than three single-line bullet points and one image per slide, or just give out a booklet.

2. It's silly to have "why oil costs over $X per barrel" when the current cost is half that. It would be better to put, "why oil WILL cost $X per barrel."

3.

I do believe that accumulation of GHGs has contributed to the observed rise in temperatures, but also believe that natural processes have made a very significant contribution. In particular, the Sun was hyper active in the latter decades of the 20th Century and this has likely contributed to the observed warming.

You may believe this, but it's not true.

"... solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming." [source]

"although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. [...] the warming over recent decades [...] is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases." [source]

[Proper bibliography at the links.]

4.

I suspect that these events plus others are responsible for the cooling trend observed since 1998 that is showing signs of intensifying.

So first you tell us there's "observed warming", and next you tell us that there's a "cooling trend". Which is it?

Well, your suspicions are incorrect: there is no "cooling trend" [Fawcett, Has the world cooled since 1998?, pp9-16]. As NASA told us in 2006, 2005 was warmer than 1998. Some "cooling trend"! Thus the following

This is especially the case if we end up in a position where the climate cools even further, and we are wasting large quantities of imported energy dealing with CO2 instead of heating and feeding the elderly and poor.

should no longer concern you. It is in any case a false dichotomy, the idea that if we spend on X we cannot spend on Y. "Insist on better fuel efficiency for cars and the elderly will freeze to death and poor people will STARVE!" No.

5.

In terms of risk management I will argue strongly that energy policies should take fully into account the risks associated with energy decline in addition to the perceived risks of climate change.

A certain bias here. Energy decline has "risks", while climate change has "perceived risks". Why the difference? I presume because of the wrong and mutually contradictory suppositions earlier; that climate change is mostly due to solar changes and therefore there's nothing we can do about it, and anyway the world is cooling, not warming.

In other words, "energy decline is a problem, climate change isn't."
6.

European governments should consider what would happen to their populations should we return to the conditions of The Little Ice Age in the decades that lie ahead.

Likewise they might consider what to do in case of invasion from Mars, or Germany electing Adolf Hitler tomorrow. But while it might help pass long and dull meetings, it's not very productive.

7. Olduvai - Duncan may "forecasts that [after 2012] per capita energy production falls off a cliff edge, and this will lead to the demise of Industrial Civilisation", but that does not make it so.

8.

Historically there has been a clear correlation between GDP and fossil fuel consumption.

That GDP and fossil fuel consumption often rise together does not mean that they always rise together.

From an article by Nate, we see that,

That is, while all poor countries consume very little energy, wealthy countries vary a lot in their energy consumption. For example, the US and Japan have similar per capita incomes, but the US consumes twice as much energy; the same for Canada and the UK, and Russia and China. Germans have twice the income of Koreans, yet use less energy. And so on.

That fossil fuel consumption generally rises with wealth does not mean that fossil fuel consumption causes a rise in wealth. In fact, higher GDP may cause higher fossil fuel consumption.

Bill Gates does not really care if oil is $150/bbl or $10/bbl, it's nothing to him; but it makes a big difference to Bill Minimum Wage. If Bill Minimum Wage burns more oil it won't make him richer; but if he's richer he can afford to burn more oil.

9. The title refers to "the pending collapse of the global economy", but treats it as a given rather than demonstrating it, or even pointing to its probability. Dramatic assertions need dramatic proof.

I could go on, but I shall leave demolishing the rest to someone with a stronger stomach than me.

I'd like to see some "dramatic" proof (or at least reason for significant confidence) of the improbable notion that there isn't going to be a near-total collapse in coming decades.
Apart from that, all well said Kiashu.

That'd be nice to have, proof that we won't go down the loo. Unfortunately, the future is unknowable. But I'm not saying that everything will be hunky-dory, I'm saying that I just don't know what will happen - but the doomers and cornucopians both don't know, either.

In this case we're looking at a doomer's article, so I'm asking for proof or at least some indications of plausibility of his assertions that doom awaits us.

If we had an article where someone was saying that "technology will solve everything, flying cars soon, I promise!" then I'd be asking them for proof or at least plausibility, too.

Dramatic assertions need dramatic proof.

I'm not going to add any more to your demolition. This seems like the appropriate spot to comment on something I've noticed and have been wanting to comment on for over a year now.

If you talk to climatologists, they tend (yes this is a generalization) to focus on climate change as the big looming disaster. They tend to think peak oil is just a distraction. And they have a point. The people who are going to suffer most from climate change are those who are going to notice the passing of peak oil the least. Namely the inhabitants of the third world. Since estimates of carbon emissions from fossil fuels are probably still done as orders of magnitude estimates, some slight variation in reserve estimates doesn't much bother a climatologist.

If you talk to a peak oiler, climate change is something that will happen in the far and distant future (50+ years) whereas peak oil is happening now or hereabouts. (Almost certainly within the next 10 years given the most optimistic valid reserve estimates.) For those of us who have electricity, running water and time to waste posting stuff on TOD, this spells the end of the world as we know it.

Ignoring crackpots who engage in outright denial of the others' science in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary, both sides have a valid point. I don't think there's a right and a wrong to these two standpoints. It seems like each proponent has his/her turf and defends it to the last. Being a student of how scientists think, this behavior is not unexpected, but never fails to amaze me. In this particular case, both camps have a common ground from which to build consensus: Namely each human being on this planet needs to start using less energy. Confusing the policy decisions of the European governments with the position of the climatologists is just daft. (Smacks of "straw man" to me.) Sure, there may be climatologists who think biofuels are a good idea, but there must be plenty more who bother to read scientific papers outside of their immediate field and realize that the CO2 emissions from ethanol are worse than burning the equivalent fossil fuels directly. Just as there are some peak oilers who think biofuels are a great idea. Whereas if they read outside of their immediate field, they would see that the EROEI sucks.

Anyway, having gotten to the end, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to write all this, but there you have it. My random thoughts for the day.

Wonderful meta-critique, dtbks.

Distractions abound, not least of which is the conflating of AGW data with dysfunctional governmental responses to it.

Did anybody honestly think that the economic engine of the world was going to embrace conservation, smaller footprints, and localization? No matter the public prod, the output from business is always the same: Tweak the mandate to maximize short-term profit. Maladaptive responses like carbon capture or trading schemes were dreamed up and lobbied to our "elected" "representatives" for one purpose, the only one that exists for a corporation.

We could well ask ourselves whether it's even possible in principle to hand over a new technology, technique, or tool to TPTB that can't be intentionally misused by the greedy. This is the nut of Ayn Rand's works, not the Power of the Markets.

We can abdicate and drive our Hummers with a shrug, we can tilt at windmills as we march on Washington, but neither is a solution at all. We do the right thing because it's the right thing, period. What that right thing means to you is what you have to negotiate daily.

You're quite right, I've noticed the same thing. The two issues of human-caused climate change and peak fossil fuels are really twin issues. They're two branches coming from the same trunk, burning fossil fuels.

The solution to both issues is the same - burn less and less fossil fuels, and eventually none at all. The only thing to argue about is what to do instead - Mad Max world, global poverty and subsistence living, fusion-powered ecotopia, or what.

The specialists in each group seem to think that the public are a bit retarded and can only understand or care about one issue at a time, that if they focus on Problem A they'll ignore Problem B. And so they tell us that A is deadly important and will cause the deaths of billions and the collapse of civilisation, and B is a non-issue, or vice versa. This even goes to denying that the other is a problem at all.

Strange stuff.

As I said, I don't see why they're so anxious, since whichever is the more important problem, even if the other problem doesn't exist at all, the solution is the same: burn less and less fossil fuels, and eventually none at all.

I don't wish to challenge the CO2 evidence of AGW. But I just wonder whether anyone here knows if there's been any research on whether the rising levels of mercury vapour could have caused GW. Due to recent policies I guess perhaps the mercury vapor may have started to reduce, thus lowering the temp a little since 1998 (albeit not statistically sig).

There are potentially lots of other variables as well - as has been pointed out Climate Change science is still immature as a field. Its the all or nothing arguments that should be avoided, and panaceas such as atmospheric CO2 - what about
ocean acidification? As good a reason as any to cut CO2.

L,
Sid.

Considering that energy efficiency is among the most cost effective options for mitigating CO2 emissions, one might expect a strong effort to reduce CO2 emissions to focus strongly on energy efficiency as well, so not all's lost there.

The climate change and the fossil energy parts of the talk sort of "bite" each other. On slide 15, Climate Change, you use a few years of declining temperatures to support the view that climate change is not that serious (to cut your long argument short). If the viewers use the same logic on crude oil supplies, then the crude oil situation is not serious because prices have declined the last few months.

I think it would be much better to say: We HAVE to do something about fossil fuels for TWO reasons: peak oil and climate change. That would be a much more compelling story.

This answer applies to many comments alike:

The work made at TOD is not made with such intentions, I couldn't care less if its fashionable or not and will never package it with something else just so that it “sells” better.

Also, mind that Peak Oil is about declining flow rates, not about prices.

biologist - fair comment. One approach would be to argue that the oil price has not in fact fallen. Another would be to argue that it still lies within an up-trend channel - which is in fact the argument I would make. But what if it continues to fall to $20 / barrel in 2012. Would this mean we were totally wrong about peak oil? We would of course need to look at production levels. If they were at 100 mmbpd with ample spare capacity then we would have been very wrong - on timing at least. If production was on 50 mmbpd and $20 / bbl then that would be another story.

I always believed that post-peak oil, the oil price would rise exponentially. I'm not so sure now and see that a total derailing of the global economy by the events leading up to and post peak may lead to a rather different outcome.

The AGW believers are of course in part right. Working out which part is the problem for me combined with their belief that they are 100% correct. The other major problem I have is that many solutions proposed to tackle the problem are energy intensive and diametrically opposed to the issues we face with energy decline.

We HAVE to do something about fossil fuels

I know this is a very selective quote - but would you agree that burning lots more fossil fuels to tackle climate change is not one of the things that should be on our list?

I'm having a "I went to a good energy site and ended up reading a load of junk from global warming deniers" moment.

I suspect the chemists are either still laughing, or wondering if they should vet their presenters more carefully.

Seriously, drop this in the round filing cabinet and try again.

Why would ERoEI <<7 be bad? What "wisdom" is behind this assertion?

ERoEI * 128? Awesome!

+1, Funny

Might I suggest a way to sidestep the trap of contradicting the likely audience viewpoint about Global Warming?

It seems your concern is that the cold temperatures in the UK will cause deaths faster than the CO2 levels.

Why not use the theory that the North Atlantic pump will fail due to GW and therefore plunge UK into colder temps. More likely the audience would follow this argument to where you want to go [ie address hypothermia].

Don't forget that extreme heatwaves can also cause death, particularly amongst the elderly and vulnerable (esp. if they're unable to seek refuge in air conditioned buildings). The 2003 heatwave caused 2,139 excess deaths in the UK for the period 4–13 August 2003 and killed 14,802 in France.

Dear Euan,
I enjoy very much your analysis and comments on the issue of peak oil, and I agree with most of your positions on various energy related issues. Unfortunately, your opinion on the issue of climate change is erroneous. You are an energy expert - not a climate scientist. Although I have read extensively on climate science myself, I am not a climate scientist so on this issue I do what I generally do on most science related issues dealing with public policy - I defer to the scientific community's consensus on the issue. The unambiguous consenus among climate scientists is that climate change is real, it has a very considerable anthropogenic component, and it represents a very serious threat to future generations of humanity. Rather than expound your personal views on climate change and its consequences, you should rely on the consensus view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. Please stick to energy issues when drawing conclusions, because there your opinion is based on knowledge and justified expertise.
Moreover,in your article you are setting up a false argument, somehow suggesting that doing the right thing on climate change conflicts with doing the right thing on addressing the problem of peak oil. In many cases - energy efficiency for example - the solution to both problems overlaps. Governments and the public have to address both climate change and peak oil, not one or the other. In fact, if anything the current financial crisis points out the importance of sustainability, whether that sustainability has to do with demands on financial bubbles that could never grow forever, or demands on oil supply that cannot grow forever, or demands on the environment of our plant that cannot continue forever.

Many of the measures needed to counteract any GW would indeed be similar to that for an energy shortage, but there is the glaring exception of the clean coal proposals which would use more energy.
Since I don't think that clean coal proposals are likely to be actioned any time soon, I am doubtful that this will make much difference.
Perhaps some of Euan's concern is that much of the energy debate, such as it is, is couched overwhelmingly in a kind of rich man's world, where the chief concern is to eliminate pollutants, including CO2 and little regard is paid to the fact that the grim reality of absolute shortages are likely to bite very soon indeed, and the concern will be keeping from freezing and getting enough food, rather than any longer-term considerations.

Moreover, in your article you are setting up a false argument, somehow suggesting that doing the right thing on climate change conflicts with doing the right thing on addressing the problem of peak oil. In many cases - energy efficiency for example - the solution to both problems overlaps.

Dan if you check slide 16 you will hopefully see this is what I am aiming at. I agree entirely that there are a range of energy strategies that mitigate the effects of energy decline and climate change and those are the strategies that should be followed. The main issue I have are the energy intensive strategies designed to tackle CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, some of those such as CCS are actively promoted by climate scientists - and here the paths diverge.

With coal fired power, the average efficiency in the UK is 37%. Hobble that with CCS and the efficiency drops to less than 30%. So are we to import coal where 70% of the energy does no useful work for society? The UK government is actively pursuing the CCS option a) because it is currently a a vote winner and b) because it may create jobs. No one has told the public yet that they may have to go without electricity as a result.

I am more in favor of combined heat and power (CHP) systems that are >90% efficient, though I'm aware of the vast logistical problems in their installation. There is a vigorous debate to be had about the pros and cons of these two approaches - which is lacking here.

As for the wisdom of discussing climate change. I think it would be very, very unhealthy if this were to become a no go area for debate.

Your exemplary efforts to communicate both national and international energy crisis risks is highly commendable and does your countrymen and the world at large a tremendous service. When you mix in your particular opinion on climate change, it immediately places it at odds with the scientific consensus (whether you believe it or not) and draws fire that ultimately pulls down the peak energy portions of the presentation with it. I agree with 99% of the rest of what you say, and do so from an energy-focused electro-mechanical engineering background while "walking the talk". You need to determine what is most important to you at future presentations; getting the energy crisis point across, or inserting your opinion on climate change. If you do the latter, the former will suffer to the point of being pointedly questioned or simply quietly held in doubt.

Shifting gears, in terms of the energy efficiency portion of the presentation, one addition you might consider is the energy efficiency goals embedded in the 2016 net zero carbon building ordinance. On energy sources, I'm puzzled as to why you don't mention hydropower.

Will, it is 8:45 am here in Aberdeen - I have an appointment else where this morning and some other stuff to do this afternoon but I will be back to answer you points and a number of others later today.

Scientific consensus Its an impressive list. A couple of years ago I towed the line and followed the consensus from a point of blissful ignorance - and I know there are some here who would likely claim nothing has changed. I got drawn into reading 50 odd papers on climate change as a result of being exposed to strategies to combat it - some of which directly conflict with my greater concern / interest which is energy decline. I was surprised reading a number of these papers how the pieces of the climate change jig saw did not fit together as simply as I may have expected after reading IPCC reports. In my case, being told I have to agree with something because everyone else agrees with it won't work at all. Especially when you learn there are tens of thousands of like minded, qualified individuals who have some doubts.

Walking the walk Impressive - well done. Right now if you met me you would not be impressed with my energy efficiency. I would like to get into a position similar to yours - finance and family circumstances permitting. My younger boy has 18 months to go at school - and we are not about to up sticks before then. My motivation for doing so will be mainly to mitigate effects of energy decline and the ensuing turmoil I expect it to create for myself and family. Up thread some "posters" who seem to like the sound of their own words seemed to doubt the whole premise that the global economy and society as we know it may collapse. I think I was called a doomer - but I don't think anyone has called me evil again, so far, on this thread. So there goes my hard earned reputation as the site optimist.

With first hand experience of fuel protests in Scotland 8 years ago, a handful of protesters bringing chaos, and on-going experience of chaos in our banking sector I have become increasingly aware how close we are to that chaos spilling over into the real economy. It is weeping out right now with unemployment rising, house reposessions rising, energy poverty rising and the destruction of pensions and wealth. Social unrest one feels is just around the corner - and we haven't really got going yet. Should chaos break spill over owing to the collapse of a few strategic industries then it is anyones guess what may happen - unpredictability being a consequence of the situation becoming chaotic. I certainly am not prepared for that.

Hydro-power True, we have one new large hydro dam being built in Scotland. In addition to that there is an extensive and on-going program to refurbish many of the older power plants improving efficiency. So all that is great. On a Scottish scale, hydro is important - something like 20% of capacity. But energy is not devolved to The Scottish parliament and on the UK scale, hydro is only a couple of %.

The upland areas of Scotland suited to hydro development are not that large and a huge amount of harm has already been done by diverting rivers, flooding valleys etc. Any new expansion will have little impact at UK level and all the costs will lie in Scotland. We already export electricity to England.

Its worth noting that Norway which produces around 100% of its electricity from hydro also faces serious public resistance to further expansion for similar reasons. Why flood our valleys to generate electricity for the Danes? And they have opted to build gas fired plant instead - that's cos they're so green.

Zero-Carbon building This is where you will have to forgive me getting cynical. Until I see it I won't believe it. The UK probably has the worst housing stock in NW Europe. In particular, in Scotland we have a large amount of poor quality government built and owned houses - much higher % than in England and the average temperatures here are lower and winter daylight hours are shorter. These houses have single glazing and little to no insulation. The best example I can give is when I was a student in aberdeen - probably 1976 - living in a poor flat, the water would freeze in the toilet and the sink and in drinking glasses inside. Things have improved a bit since then but not everywhere. The problem was tackled by throwing nat gas at it. Best stop there.

Now it is I who is pressed for time, but I would like to address the Net Zero Carbon Building topic briefly. There are good examples of highly energy efficient building in the UK; BedZed is one, and the architects' website is here. Different? Quite. But efforts like these show how new building techniques and approaches can transform the building process away from energy hogs to being net energy neutral.

Here's an overview of the standards and the first house to achieve this standard.

“If you talk to a peak oiler, climate change is something that will happen in the far and distant future (50+ years) whereas peak oil is happening now or hereabouts. (Almost certainly within the next 10 years given the most optimistic valid reserve estimates.)” Posted by dtbks

“The people who are going to suffer most from climate change are those who are going to notice the passing of peak oil the least.”
Posted by dtbks

“As for the wisdom of discussing climate change. I think it would be very, very unhealthy if this were to become a no go area for debate.” Posted by Wuan Mearns

The part of the presentation regarding energy depletion was quite good, but I would highly recommend dropping the climate-change stuff off entirely.

First, from the general drift I get, there is pretty near a consensus in the scientific community that human activities are the prime mover behind the effects of climate change, from what we are starting to see now to what is anticipated in the future. So I don’t know that continuing a “debate” doesn’t just enable the climate-change deniers/BAU proponents to continue their distracting rhetoric. Even here on this thread, most of the discussion seems to be a debate about climate change rather than the effects of dwindling energy supplies.

Another reason to omit the climate-change stuff is expressed in the quote from dtbks above. True, the advanced effects of climate-change, whatever its cause could be horribly catastrophic (100 foot sea-level rises), but these effects aren’t going to happen to-morrow or next year or likely for some decades. Long before this comes about, the world’s economies will be devastated by declining energy supplies. And the people in the Third World who might least notice the passing of peak oil itself WILL notice and be caught up in the worldwide economic upheavals caused by peak oil/energy.

Long before 50 years go by, the world will have come to grips with the fact that the era of more or less continuous economic “growth” is over, forever, and so, too is the era of “progress”, at least as it has generally been defined. In addition to physical shortages, all this will create an enormous dissonance in the collective consciousness of, at least, the Western, industrialized world, as fundamental assumptions held since the beginning of the industrial revolution collapse. Virtually all of the governmental, legal, and economic institutions created in the West over the past several centuries were both made possible, and based on the idea of continuing “growth”, and will likely become irrelevant and inoperable in the new reality facing us in the next ten years, at the outside.

One critique on Slide 24. While I think your percentage-assignments are plausible enough, I would revise #3 (with a 25% probability) that instead of crashing to an “Olduvai” level (to me, “Olduvai” means “Stone-Age”), we would likely ultimately end up with an agrarian society and a far smaller world population. While the collapse will be devastating at times, we won’t lose all our knowledge (esp. re hygiene and sanitation) and I can’t imagine things becoming worse than they were back in the Middle Ages. I say the collapse will be devastating “at times” because it won’t all happen at once; there will likely be a stair-stepping decline over the next 100-200 years as societies restructure in the face of new realities. And I suspect, that at the end of the day, the other two scenarios on Slide 24, will also lead to an agrarian society in 100-200 years. The route we end up getting from here to there and how painful the whole process will be seems to be the only matter we might have some control over.

Again, we will be bitten in the behind by the effects of peak oil/energy decades before the serious fallout of climate-change effects manifest themselves.

Antoinetta III

Euan - "The main issue I have are the energy intensive strategies designed to tackle CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, some of those such as CCS are actively promoted by climate scientists - and here the paths diverge."

You are really going to have to post a reference to any climate scientist that promotes CCS as a solution. The main people that promote CCS are coal industry people. Likewise the main proponents of biofuels are oil companies and people who wish to keep the status-quo at all costs. Biofuels are at best a farm subsidy and at worst are a get rich scheme for crooks. Neither CCS or biofuels are the answer for either global warming or peak oil.

I totally agree that the front line measure in combating both climate change and peak oil is energy efficiency gains and reducing energy use. They are first in all the lists that I have ever approved of.

Second is to wherever possibly shift to zero carbon energy sources. These include wind, solar PV, solar thermal with storage, geothermal, wave energy etc. I do not include nuclear in this as I consider it unecessarily dangerous to even contemplate. There will be no nuclear power stations in Australia while I still have a body to put in front of a bulldozer.

Thirdly upgrade our creaking electricity grid with HVDC to link up all the distributed renewable power stations along with storage nodes to make a smart grid. HVDC links also allows us to connect the thousands of places where we can gasify biomass as it is not economical to transport millions of tons of bulky biomass to gasify it. Better to gasify it where it is and then send the electricity to market and bury the charcoal in the ground to improve soil quality.

Fourth electrify whatever transport we can as the electrified transport can be part of the smart grid and provide the needed storage nodes.

All of these measure address the linked problems of climate change and peak oil(carbon). After all burning carbon is both causing climate change and is the diminishing basis of our society. Stopping burning carbon solves both.

Again CCS and biofuels are not from the environmental movement.

Better to gasify it where it is and then send the electricity to market and bury the charcoal in the ground to improve soil quality.

You're getting sloppy with your nomenclature.  Gasification is usually used to gasify everything combustible, especially the carbon.  You are thinking of slow pyrolysis (fast pyrolysis yields bio-oil and almost no char, and the char is typically burned for process heat anyway).

EP - "You're getting sloppy with your nomenclature"

Fair enough - have you got a recent reference so I can read up on slow pyrolysis?

EP - I should have known better. It is slow pyrolysis that I was thinking of. Here is an Australian company pioneering it:

http://www.bestenergies.com/

And a story from Catalyst promoting it:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm

Imagine a network of pyrolysis plants all over the countryside with an exchange system where you bring in your waste biomass and receive biochar in return. The syngas can drive gas turbines that can be controlled automatically with the local wind farm or solar thermal plant.

Beats nuclear anyday.

Transport would be a killer.  Why not use something like the University of Hawaii carbonizer in your back yard and use the gas to run an engine?  The waste heat (from both the carbonizer and engine) could go for space heat or DHW.

Unfortunately, some of those such as CCS are actively promoted by climate scientists - and here the paths diverge.

Euan,

You may be getting confused here. There is a difference between saying that there should be no more coal plants until CCS can be implemented and saying that CCS should be used. At present, the position of no new coal plants is mainly about conservation and wind power since CCS is so far away.

California does not allow new nuclear power plants until the waste issue is resolved. Nuclear power also is a bad investment in terms of energy and California is saving itself some problems with its policy, but the issue is pollution, not energy. As it turns out, California is seeing many applications for renewbale generation hookup and won't ever be needing new nuclear power. Pesumably that will be the fate of CCS as well.

Chris

As for the wisdom of discussing climate change. I think it would be very, very unhealthy if this were to become a no go area for debate.

I think we have already reached that point, and you have to tailor your approach accordingly.

As far as hypothermia is concerned, you could point out that warmer AVERAGE temperatures do not preclude the occassional freakishly cold winter. You only need one bad winter in ten to kill off a lot of old folks.

Like you said, push insulation and energy efficiency, which are useful in cold snaps and heat waves alike.

I'd also add that although I'm skeptical about AGW simply because of the hysteria of many of its advocates, there has to be SOME human contribution to the recent warming trend. You can't expect all that CO2 to do nothing. And if you add UCG to conventional coal there are at least 3 trillion tonnes left to burn - enough to get us up to 1000 ppm.

Let's say half the observed warming is due to CO2 and the other half is due to rebound from the little ice age. We'd expect the rebound to continue for another century - and we then chuck another couple of degrees on top of that ourselves via CO2. So we end up 2 degrees warmer than the medieval optimum peak by 2100, with CO2 at 1000ppm.

The fact half the rise is natural doesn't stop us pushing the temperature a couple of degrees over anything seen in the last 10,000 years. And you can't rule out CO2 of 1000ppm unless UCG is a non-starter. Which is a hard position to take, since we've been doung UCG commercially off and on for over a century.
.

I'd also add that although I'm skeptical about AGW simply because of the hysteria of many of its advocates,

By which reasoning we ought to be sceptical of peak oil.

TenThousandMileMargin - "I think we have already reached that point, and you have to tailor your approach accordingly."

No you can have a debate on global warming as long as you are referencing peer reviewed science to back up what you say. If you are going to recycle arguments long since debunked by sound science then you will get the response you do from people that have debated long and hard for years on this issue and have heard the same arguments, still without any scientific basis, again and again.

If the case against AGW was so compelling there should be thousands of peer reviewed papers stating this. The fact is that only a handful of the skeptic scientists, like Christie, actually publish peer reviewable papers that people do take notice of. Blog posts do not count.

For laypeople like myself we have to go with what the majority of scientists agree is the truth and that is that our carbon emissions and land use changes are causing global warming. This global warming may cause some degree of climate change in the future. What that change will be is anybody's guess at the moment.

Thanks for the post Euan; general solutions do need to be stirred ;-)

Anyhow, regarding coal (and other high-energy sources), over-all, can anyone (here) determine or (presently) know what the most efficient use of this resource? [Including: Direct or derived/ micro or macro applications? Method of manipulation - source of energy input (living or mechanised)? Use within a certain area of extraction source? For use involving simple or complex (iterative) outputs (when extraploated to national use)?]
For example: How efficient was coal use when a local man used it to make 'lower-end' tools compared to 2008 mass-produced alloys/electricity?

On another note, somewhat linked to the above: Why are micro-generation (electric or otherwise) turbines with wooden or sail blades not more widespread? [I suppose i'm getting at the point that maybe some comparison will (eventually) have to be made between ultimately viable land-uses (flax, cotton, 'oily' plants)and usefulness - what balance can be struck].

There are many other things i don't know about (hence the questions), but that's for now.

C

I see things quite differently. Here on TOD, there is a general consensus that, in the foreseeable future, we will witness a world-wide decline in the availability of fossil fuels, and that this will be driven by geological constraints. I share the opinion of many on this forum that this reduced availability will cause severe economic hardship in the coming years.

On the other hand, the position of climate change advocates is that we should--and must--willfully reduce our use of fossil fuels, and that governments should impose restrictions on their use. The conflict I see arising is that, as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce due to geological constraints, a populace who is very aware of the prevailing opinion of climatologists and little aware of that of geologists will blame their hardships on those advocating action on climate change. Regardless of the validity of predictions regarding AGW, its proponents will be viewed as having caused the scarcity.

I agree that, if we are to accept the arguments of AGW, the solutions to both peak oil and climate change are nearly identical (though I concur with Euan that these paths diverge significantly when it comes to CO2 sequestration). But the reasons behind implementing these changes are as different as night and day. I don't think we have time to develop sufficient alternatives to mitigate the problem. In the face of hardship, people will find it much easier to find someone to blame than take a long, hard look at their use (abuse?) of finite natural resources.

Well, they don't actually (at least in some cases). CO2 can be sequestered and at the same time used to further develop tired oil fields through tertiary crude oil recovery. The amount of oil per unit time is not great, but it could help to slow the decline rate so that alternatives can be developed and introduced.

Retsel

I agree that, if we are to accept the arguments of AGW, the solutions to both peak oil and climate change are nearly identical (though I concur with Euan that these paths diverge significantly when it comes to CO2 sequestration).

Except that he has it backwards. He says that those more concerned with climate change than peak oil will support sequestration. In fact they don't.

That's because sequestered CO2 can leak out and come back, and anyway only 55% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from burning fossil fuels, and rather less of them are burned in ways which could let us capture the CO2 (a bit easier with a coal-fired station than a Winnebago). So that sequestration solves only part of the problem and only unreliably and for a while.

So if you're most worried about climate change, then you'll oppose sequestration.

But if you think there's no such thing as climate change, or that burning stuff doesn't cause it, then while you'll think burying the stuff is pointless, you won't care if sequestered CO2 leaks out, or if it's only a small fraction of all greenhouse emissions. But you might be happy if sequestration lets us pump out more oil.

So that those most worried about climate change will oppose sequestration, while those most worried about peak oil will be indifferent to it, or even support it.

Count me among the people who has suggested that the US buy time by using captured CO2 to recover oil from fields wherever this might be worthwhile.  It is certainly better to use a fractional barrel-equivalent of coal (given to efficiency loss in the coal plant) to recover a barrel of oil than to use 2 barrels-equivalent in CTL.

I always view miscible gas flooding of reservoirs using CO2, which I strongly support, as a completely separate issue to CCS. Miscible gas flooding's aim is to enhance oil recovery - the enemy of climate science and Greens. It is funded by the oil recovered. I'm quite happy to go along with the secondary argument that this will also sequester some CO2 - I'm all in favor of pursuing the precautionary principal.

Its clear that in climate science that there are at least 2 camps. The climate science / physicists like Hansen who I believe would quite like industrial civilisation to continue and propose using CCS as a means of permitting the continued use of coal. And there are The Greens who are actually quite in favour of dismantling industrial civilisation ASAP and would see the best solution to the problems we face as simply stopping burning everything tomorrow.

The politicisation of climate science and Kyoto et al that focusses on CO2 has undoubtedly brought Europe to the point we are at where a range of climate policies are being pursued that are incompatible with the energy decline crisis that is washing over us - Europe is in a much more precarious position in its FF inventory than is N America.

Euan,

Good presentation and even better is getting this discussion going. Yes I think GW is for real but not to the extent that the Corporate/Finance world & Politicians have highjacked and hyped the topic. Furthermore I acknowledge the correlation of a lack of sunspots with cooling periods. This does not mean there is a causality however the prudent thing to do is to study the matter more closely.

It would be interesting to hear from Chuck Watson. At the very end of his ASPO USA presentation he metioned that he was incline to think that the new cooling period would soon be upon us.

Carbon credit trading is another of Wall Street bailout santioned by big governments which makes use of globalization and "free" markets. It makes the middle class feel that something is being done; buys time with environmentalist just like corn based ethanol initially did.

David

Euan,

Thanks for the post. I found slide 21 especially useful. How did you estimate the energy needed for a sustainable world?

I have had similar thoughts about how the goals of creating a sustainable future without fossil fuels and preventing/controlling global warming are in conflict if one looks at one side of the story but not the other. However, I believe that the solutions to both problems are overwhelmingly similar that both issues should be used to lend weight to calls for policy changes.

I also had few questions about some of the slides:

1) Slide 1 - What do you think is the relationship between the housing bubble and energy prices?

2) Slide 3 - This is the second time I've seen this slide used on TOD, and I still don't understand it. What is this graph trying to prove? To me, the only reason the price "meets" production is because the scales on the graph have been calibrated so the lines match. I also don't see much relationship between production levels and price. In the second half of 2006, oil prices dropped, even as production stagnated. On the other hand, the increase in production in the second half of 2007 correlated with a sharp spike in prices. If the graph was extended through to today, we would see a near halving in the price of crude oil and, according to TOD's latest update, a slight rise in production. There is obviously, over the long term, some correlation between supply and demand on one hand and price on the other, but I don't really see how this graph captures that concept. Can someone help me out here?

3) Slide 10 - Why do you assume that U.K. gas use will increase consistently over the next five years, even though your chart shows a downward trend in consumption over the past 7 years? Obviously imports will need to increase without more drastic reductions, but the effect won't be as substantial if consumption trends continue downward. Are there reasons to expect it to increase? Maybe I'm just reading the graph wrongly?

4) Slide 12 - What assumptions do your projections about future energy debt in the U.K. make about factors such as crude oil prices, the strength of the dollar, U.K. consumption, etc?

Perhaps I can contribute to resolving your point 3:
Vast amounts of UK generating capacity are due to be retired in the next few years, both nuclear and coal, it therefore seems likely that gas use will rise, assuming it is available and can be afforded.

Euan,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to almost everyones comments.
For the collapse hypothesis to be credible you need to demonstrate:
1)energy per capita is going to be too low to support GDP. If the worlds average GDP/capaita is $5,000 and uses 2,000W of energy, it seems reasonable that civilization would not collapse if could maintain 1,000W/capita. In fact if we were as energy efficient as Japan is today that would enable a GDP of $5,000/capaita.
If we accept that the population will be 9Billion by 2050( possibly stabilized at this value), then the energy requirements are going to be 9TW( about what is used now). If 75% of this(7TW) has to come from non-FF sources because of a 75% decline in FF, we would require 2.8 TW additional non-FF electricity( because FF is on average 40% efficient).
We know there are wind resources of 70TW, solar resources of 1500 TW. If we just consider replacing 75% of the FF with 2.8TW wind energy(because we can easily calculate what resources are needed with todays technology), each 1MW of energy would need a 3MW wind turbine using less than 500 tonnes steel. So 2.8TW(2,800,000MW) will require 2,800,000 x500 tonnes of steel, and lesser amounts of cement, and other metals. This 1.4 Billion tonnes over a 20 year life-time of a turbine would require just 5% of the worlds annual steel production.
Oil will still be required, some coal will be required, and skilled labor BUT we will still have some oil in 2050, and still lots of coal. IF the choice is;COLLAPSE or use 5% of annual steel production I would be betting on building a few less buildings, or bridges or cars.
Even if NO new steel production was available, you could cannibalise just a fraction of the US infrastructure to provide the steel(1 years world production)
The other argument is "We can do it but will be have the political will to do it?" the only answer is if politicians can't make these changes they will be replaced by ones who can. Lots of history to support this thesis.

Neil - I pretty well agree in general terms with what you say here. As mentioned else where on the thread I (and Luis) are the site optimists.

But I feel less optimistic as time passes, as our leaders conspire to make one bad decision after another on energy and transport policy. We will likely need a disaster to focus their attention.

No doubt we can likely lead a similar living standard to now using a fraction of the energy.

Euan, et al.

As a Climate Scientist (consider reading my comments on ASPO - Final Thoughts) there may be a more effective way to illustrate your points w/r/t Climate Change. Could offer several options that may better make your point (which am still a bit unclear)... if interested, just let me know by responding. Climate Change discipline is far, far from mature, and too many folks are quoted with questionable backgrounds. Hence, my comments made in ASPO--VII - Final Thoughts. My view...should strive for same on Peak Oil subject...

--Nichoman

Nichoman - thanks for this and your comment on the other thread. I cannot speak for all my colleagues, but my main objective is to understand a range of issues relating to energy decline and to communicate these to policy makers and decision makers in the hope that this might influence well-informed Executive decision making.

In the UK (and Europe) energy policy as it stands is closely linked to climate policy. This is in the news all the time - virtually every day. No bad thing many would shout. However, a number of the policies being pursued are wrong and potentially disasterous at this time. If we build the wrong energy and transport infrastructure right now we may never get a second chance to recover - is one line of thinking.

The UK government is supporting the "Hydrogen economy" and the media join in by fantasising about this. In Aberdeen plans have been discussed about building a high tech hydrogen corridor. I have had brief discussion with a professor of economics and our First Minister (equivalent of president) about this to be pretty comprehensively slapped down - "your not going to kill the hydrogen economy before it gets going?

They are also supporting Carbon Capture and Storage with plans to retro-fit Scotland's largest coal fired plant at Longannet (the UKs second largest) with CCS. Roughly speaking 30% of the energy now produced will be used to bury CO2. This in my opinion is so bat shit crazy I can hardly believe it. The alternative is to use the money (and energy) to build new super-efficient plant.

The UK and EU parliaments support and subsidise bio-ethanol and think most by now are aware of what a bad idea this has been.

All of these initiatives are pursued in the name of climate change, meeting CO2 reduction targets etc. They have also received variable support from the climate change scientific community.

So at a time in the UK when we see our energy supplies dwindling, our balance of trade flying into the red we also see our government inventing new ways to consume vast amounts of energy.

How do we educate them and stop them doing this?

It doesn't help when we have a range of academic and industrial groups working on projects detailed above defending their corner.

There are broader issues about the IPCC and consensual science that we would likely have to discuss over a pint (of wine) and the destiny of science should the IPCC turn out to be wrong. And the clock is ticking. Its clear from this thread that there are a number of folks who cannot conceive the possibility that they are wrong. If NW Europe (and Russia) happens to get a severely cold winter - this year or next which is on the cards - and I'm talking about severity not seen for 20 years - then we will have a full blown natural gas supply crisis and problems keeping folks alive.

Euan,
This was a very interesting presentation which has prompted me to post after 'eavesdropping' for a number of months. The approach you advocate is increasing energy efficiency, but how do you get around the idea in the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom-Brookes_postulate ) whereby energy consumption tends to increase with increasing efficiency rather than falling? Does this not apply to the Peak Oil situation, or is there a way to get from efficiency (good, but not enough) to actual reduction in energy consumption (which when combined with enough efficiency hopefully gives an acceptable quality of life)?
Any answers to this question would be much appreciated.

Sares - as your link points out this is more commonly known as Jevon's paradox. Your interpretation is pretty well aligned with my own here.

With abundant energy, energy efficiency leads us to use more - most likely because efficient use keeps the cost down.

In an energy constrained world, energy efficiency may allow us to survive at a reasonable standard and most certainly at a better standard than if we were inefficient.

Another couple of thoughts. Countries that are most energy efficient will be able to pay the most and outbid inefficient countries for dwindling supplies.

The same applies to individuals. Those who need to use little energy because of efficient use will afford it much more easily. A quirk in the tail is that energy efficiency costs money to install. And we will end up very quickly I think with an energy poor underclass spending vast sums trying to heat their homes, and still being cold while the more more wealthy can invest in energy saving goods and then easily afford the lesser amounts of energy they require to remain comfortable.

Energy poverty is very much in the news here, but the government seems incapable of joining the dots.

If you cannot keep the population warm and fed, it does not matter how much carbon you capture from your coal fired plants. People will not just willingly freeze to death, they will burn anything and everything to prevent that.

The peak oiler's and AGW alarmists want the same thing. I think Euan's comments about efficiency being the major short term goal ( at least in the UK) should be helpful for both camps.

Hi Eaun,

I like your slide show, and I totally get your main message.

As I often tell people, the uk has been a unique experiment for the Neo-liberal - Washington consensus theory of deregulated market economic theory. Also, unlike many other western governments, the UK has a reactionary governing system as opposed to say Germany's, which follow a more 'precautionary' based principle - as indeed is most of Europe. With the UK its wait until there's a disaster then let the private sector clear it up - with of course massive government subsidy! (See: Albert Weale, "The new politics of pollution" Chapter 3: Manchester : Manchester University Press, c1992.)

Also, as regards the GW ('A' or otherwise) debate, my ha'peneth is that it is probably a case of 'not only but also'; the total number of variables that have an influence on climate probably tends to be larger than can reasonably be modeled using current techniques. See how for instance local changes in de/re-forestation may have affected the Little Ice Age (LIA), and a test of the overdue glaciation hypothesis, which points to massive deforestation of Eurasia and the rise of rice farming in Asia increasing CO2 and CH4 respectively giving an 'equilibrium warming' of 0.8oC with > 2oC at the poles some 5000 years ago (p.2). But what of other factors are not known or impossible to be included, such as high and low cloud cover and high altitude particulates/pollutants?

Suffice to say as you point out in the presentation, fossil fuels will start depleting and with them CO2 emissions which could ironically trigger a sudden cooling - meaning the northern hemisphere and especially the UK might require more energy for heating (if we continue to live in the current thermally leaky housing stock) when there is none available due to laissez fair energy governance.

And if it does get warmer globally, the gulf stream could still reduce, inflicting more summers like the two just gone. But thats not the scariest part, its knowing how we do things in the UK when TSHTF!

L,
Sid.

Great slide set. I also disagree with the AGW denial, but I don't think it detracts from the rest of the presentation. Actually, we may need to serve up Peak Oil with a side of AGW Denial just to get conservatives on board, but don't tell anyone I said that. *wink wink*

Regarding slides 2-8 about the cost of oil, I think you should also address the role of institutional investors and commodity index funds. It's clear that the crash in oil prices was caused not just by demand destructions but also a global deleveraging of credit and liquidation of long positions in oil. We had a bit of groupthink here last summer downplaying the speculators, but they did contribute to the high prices.

A brief editorial note. We all have different beliefs, skill sets, hopes and dreams. We share large circles of commonality with some people and share only tiny circles of common beliefs/opinions with others. One common circle we all share, is to hope for a better future, for us, our children, and other denizens of the planet.

Resource depletion and anthropogenic induced climate disruption are two sides of the same coin - one is a source limit - the other is a sink limit. The majority of 'answers' to both are the same: less conspicuous consumption, more investment into scalable, high energy gain, low externality renewables. This common circle between those primarily concerned about energy depletion and those primarily concerned with climate change is about 90%. The rest depends on flow rates of available energy, and error bands on both energy and climate science.

The discussion here at TOD will likely never be centered on climate science because our comparative advantage and experience is on the energy supply and demand side. Thus the $64,000 question that we will endeavor to try and answer in the near future is: how urgent is the energy situation? The answers to that will have manifold implications on how quickly we can answer both the energy source/environmental sink problems. Again - most of the strategies (with exception of energy intensive sequestration as Euan points out) are the same.

Finally, in my personal opinion, 'addressing' climate disruption by reducing GHGs in the face of an oil peak and keeping the rest of the business as usual juggernaut unchanged is the equivalent of putting a band aid on a patient with cancer. Unfortunately, the energy policy equivalent of 'chemotherapy' is not going to be a strategy chosen by anyone until just about everyone accepts the diagnosis.

Dear Mr Hagen,
I for one, appreciated your well tempered post. I have no PhD., am not a scientist, and do not specialise in any of the areas herein.

However, I am also not stupid. I attempt at least to think rationally, and desire empirical scientifically tested proofs before I believe anything.

Sometimes this is difficult. In court cases, each side may appoint their own expert witnesses. By definition, their arguments will be opposed. The result, often, is that his honour the Judge will direct that both testimonies be set aside.

A most unpleasant aspect of some posts stemming from this main article, is the stridency of the moral indignation which characterises so many of the posts from those who believe in dangerous man-made global warming. I recently gave a public talk on wind turbines, the other side took a similar approach. Such an approach is recognisable in religions.

After reading and considering both sides, one inevitably begins to drift toward a belief than one case is the stronger. Take the two issues of for example, global warming, and the move toward wind turbines.

It seems to me that before progress may be made, the first hurdles must be identified and crossed. In my non-scientific, but I hope mature, view in these two cases the first hurdles are -
1) is it yet proven conclusively that any putative warming trends are outside of the historic standard deviations? and 2) in the case of wind turbines, is it true that for every 100Mw of installed wind, some 90Mw of EXTRA back up is required?

As yet, even these do not appear decided. If we cannot yet agree these, then surely the appropriate response is simply further enquiry and discussion, not haranguing one another?

At the same time, simply because oil is uniquely energy dense, and irreplaceable, at least for the modes of transport which support our current life-styles, we would be wise to assume the worst. And even with no scientific qualification it seems patently obvious that in a conflict between energy consumption constraints and the supposed global warming, the urgent must for a while take precedence. Where there is not conflict, there is no problem.

It is not the world we are trying to save; it is us. The world will be fine. Life will continue to find its vectors, and does not need us. Life appears not to care for having all its eggs in one basket - unlike us.

Ok, I have to channel my own past as a teacher of composition - because this essay really needs it.

I think the value of Euan's larger point ends up getting lost by his taking an unnecessary (and wrong, but that's not my primary objection) detour into his personal opinions about climate change. Despite his evocation of thousands of scientists who presumably share his view but rarely publish in peer reviewed journals, honestly, this point isn't really needed to get at the deep question of what we should be doing. Instead, totally predictably, it ends up as a massive distraction, and is probably going to reduce the number of outlets for his work. It also reinforces the notion that climate change and peak oil thinkers are fundamentally competing for a narrative, and reduces the likelihood that they might ally with each other for greater policy impact. Frankly, that doesn't seem very wise to me.

To make this credible and avoid brangling about global warming, it would make a lot more sense to simply argue that the *approach* to AGW is misguided - that the focus must be on more efficient usage and preparing for higher prices and lower availability of fossil fuels to address both problems. There are plenty of AGW scientists and thinkers who are also aware that the strategies Euan so objects to are stupid from an AGW point of view - CCS is incredibly expensive and doesn't work. Biofuels often produce more greenhouse gasses in the net, and further strain the ability of systems to resolve food issues already made acute by a whole host of things, including AGW and peak oil.

A credible case could easily be made that greater conservation, gains in efficiency and other strategies are necessary from both viewpoints. Even if Euan doesn't believe this personally, he could suck it up and recognize that to have an impact, it isn't necessary for him to fully explore all his thoughts - recognizing what is totally extraneous is part and parcel of the project here. Euan's opinions on the causes of climate change are extraneous, and easily removed from this, his argument refined and made far more productive, and then people don't have to decide whether they want to invite someone who is good on Peak Oil but who not only has a minority opinion on climate change without being in any sense a climate expert, but who also risks their credibility, if they are critiqued for bringing in someone who doesn't take AGW seriously.

Sharon Astyk

Hi Sharon,
I hope that you found my response to your previous comment on the EROI of nuclear power, and why I do not have much faith in the figures bandied about responsive.

On the subject at hand, whilst it would be convenient if the difference on GW could be finessed, this does not seem to me to answer the case.

Clean coal technology need not detain us, as it does not exist at the moment, but if you feel that CO2 emissions do not cause GW, then you would advocate very different policies to if you do.
In the US this would likely include support for coal burn, which is much cheaper if emissions are discounted than any of the alternatives save NG, and in the UK might focus on in-situ coal combustion.
Reserves for this are very large, and also have some possibility of maybe combining it with sequestration in some form, so the dispute might not be absolute.
However, we don't know how to do this at the moment.

To clarify my own position, I accept the consensus on GW, and am simply rather irritated by the use of language in a purportedly scientific debate such as 'GW denier', which is used specifically to restrict debate without in itself being other than polemic.
Much of the comment from people who are as untrained as myself in the subject is both absolute and immoderate.
The degree of precision with which models can be relied on seems to me to be greatly exaggerated, in what is after all a complex and chaotic system.

That is in fact one of the frightening things about climate, as it is very clear that major sudden changes have taken place even without any influence from man.

The issue of man-made GW can't be swept under the carpet though, as it presents real choices depending on how it is viewed.

My own feeling with the information that is currently to hand is that renewables, nuclear and conservation is the way to go.
The choices are real ones, and Euan and others should tell it as they think it is, not adopt a political line couched to produce a program, in the unlikely event that business and political leaders are going to action anything at all to counter either peak oil or GW.

Hi Folks,

One thing that springs to mind from reading the above comments is not to lose ones head... ;-)

L,
Sid.

All this discussion of scientific theory, experiment and proof in connection with GW is all very well, but we have a problem Houston. We only have one planet on which to try the experiment and only one time to work out the results and to act based on what we discover and their implied consequences. And the clock is ticking. Of course, if you don't believe in AGW then of course the clock has stopped and we can just keep experimenting, theorising and setting up new computer models and running the tests all over again. And again. And again. The real problem of course is that if we really are the cause of GW due to our CO2 emissions (amongst others) and we carry on as though the jury's still out we will discover the rightness of a saying I came across in 1992 - "Hell is truth seen too late". Note that "too" is the crucial word here.

I believe Caroline Lucas MEP also said some years ago "We could be the first species to monitor our own extinction".

Where's the precautionary principle in all this?

Euan,

Your work on Global Warming is pretty much right on target. Nice work. TOD's preoccupation with GW, while trying to address the seriousness of PO, is a distraction and ultimately reduces the credibility of PO discussions and presentations. This election saw most Global Warming initiatives fail, for good reason. The principle reason is that most consumers, farmers, ranchers and foresters understand two things. First, global warming is good, not bad. Second, carbon in general and carbon dioxide in particular is good, not bad. Higher average temperatures together with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduce crop failures and improve crop, grazing and forest production. Those two factors are the principal forces greening the planet and feeding all of us today. Liberal and eco-cults want to torpedo that winning combination. Why? Perhaps you have some ideas here.

Oy, vey.

Your work on Global Warming is pretty much right on target.

On the contrary, I think Euan's position on GW is quite wrong. However, I agree with the conclusion he draws from this, namely that we should focus on energy efficiency over emissions reduction. As he notes, it amounts to the same thing.

First, global warming is good, not bad.

I don't think you've thought this through. How much warming is good before it becomes bad? Heat and drought go together unless water for irrigation is available. Please go and start a farm in a desert and tell me how you get on.

Higher average temperatures together with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduce crop failures and improve crop, grazing and forest production.

Average higher temperatures make icecaps and glaciers melt. The former causes sea level rise, coastal inundation and contamination of potable aqueous reservoirs. The latter adds slightly to sea level rise, and reduced river outflows and therefore a threat to fresh water supplies.

Increased carbon dioxide can lead to increased growth. But can also lead to suppression of root growth. Here is the abstract (my emphasis) from

"Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO2", Science, Vol 298, pp 1987.

Simulated global changes, including warming, increased precipitation, and nitrogen deposition, alone and in concert, increased net primary production (NPP) in the third year of ecosystem-scale manipulations in a California annual grassland. Elevated carbon dioxide also increased NPP, but only as a single-factor treatment. Across all multifactor manipulations, elevated carbon dioxide suppressed root allocation, decreasing the positive effects of increased temperature, precipitation, and nitrogen deposition on NPP. The NPP responses to interacting global changes differed greatly from simple combinations of single-factor responses. These findings indicate the importance of a multifactor experimental approach to understanding ecosystem responses to global change.

I do farm in a desert, as have three generations on both sides of my family. Where once there was only sage brush, there is now a growing variety of crops, including large vineyards. The change has been most striking in the last forty years. My personal observations over the decades would agree with this excerpt from "Global Change Biology"; Impact of climate change on grassland production and soil carbon worldwide - "The impact of climate change and increasing atmospheric CO2 was modelled for 31 temperate and tropical grassland sites, using the CENTURY model. Climate change increased net primary production, except in cold desert steppe regions, and CO2 increased production everywhere." Most of the farmers, ranchers and foresters I have talked with from all over the country would agree. Spending ANY money on sequestering CO2 is counterproductive, anyway you look at it. AGW discussions on a PO website are equally counterproductive and detact from the group's credibility, which isn't very substantial in the first place. Are this site's reader hits increasing or decreasing, as your preoccupation with AGW increases?