Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on July 23, 2016
Michael Klare, Fossil Fuels Forever
Think of them as omens of our age. While global temperatures have been soaring lately — May was the 13th month in a row to break all-time heat records — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration just reported, more parochially, that this was the hottest June on record for the lower 48 states. (USA! USA!) No state came in below the norm and in the West and Southwest, it was hot as hell. Record hot.
Then consider this: Arctic summer sea ice is heading for oblivion at a remarkable pace (which, since ice reflects sunlight, means that those waters will now be absorbing yet more heat). In June, that ice was disappearing at a rate 70% faster than the norm. Looked at over the longer term, as Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian explained, “a vast expanse of ice — an area about twice the size of Texas — has vanished over the past 30 years, and the rate of that retreat has accelerated.”
By the way, if you want to keep your eye on the horizon for future such omens, a possible 2016 record is already looming when it comes to billion-dollar-plus weather disasters with eight of them so far this year. The average had once been five annually, but in recent years has been around 11.
If you’ll excuse a mixed (but appropriate) metaphor, given the subject TomDispatch regular Michael Klare takes up today, there seem to be an awful lot of canaries in the coal mines at the moment, and wherever you turn, they’re expiring. Klare’s latest report on our fossil-fueled planet suggests that the use of coal, oil, and natural gas will not fall, but actually continue to rise in the next decades and so, of omens, there will be plenty to come. Tom
Hooked!
The Unyielding Grip of Fossil Fuels on Global Life
By Michael T. KlareHere’s the good news: wind power, solar power, and other renewable forms of energy are expanding far more quickly than anyone expected, ensuring that these systems will provide an ever-increasing share of our future energy supply. According to the most recent projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, global consumption of wind, solar, hydropower, and other renewables will double between now and 2040, jumping from 64 to 131 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs).
And here’s the bad news: the consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas is also growing, making it likely that, whatever the advances of renewable energy, fossil fuels will continue to dominate the global landscape for decades to come, accelerating the pace of global warming and ensuring the intensification of climate-change catastrophes.
The rapid growth of renewable energy has given us much to cheer about. Not so long ago, energy analysts were reporting that wind and solar systems were too costly to compete with oil, coal, and natural gas in the global marketplace. Renewables would, it was then assumed, require pricey subsidies that might not always be available. That was then and this is now. Today, remarkably enough, wind and solar are already competitive with fossil fuels for many uses and in many markets.
If that wasn’t predicted, however, neither was this: despite such advances, the allure of fossil fuels hasn’t dissipated. Individuals, governments, whole societies continue to opt for such fuels even when they gain no significant economic advantage from that choice and risk causing severe planetary harm. Clearly, something irrational is at play. Think of it as the fossil-fuel equivalent of an addictive inclination writ large.
The contradictory and troubling nature of the energy landscape is on clear display in the 2016 edition of the International Energy Outlook, the annual assessment of global trends released by the EIA this May. The good news about renewables gets prominent attention in the report, which includes projections of global energy use through 2040. “Renewables are the world’s fastest-growing energy source over the projection period,” it concludes. Wind and solar are expected to demonstrate particular vigor in the years to come, their growth outpacing every other form of energy. But because renewables start from such a small base — representing just 12% of all energy used in 2012 — they will continue to be overshadowed in the decades ahead, explosive growth or not. In 2040, according to the report’s projections, fossil fuels will still have a grip on a staggering 78% of the world energy market, and — if you don’t mind getting thoroughly depressed — oil, coal, and natural gas will each still command larger shares of the market than all renewables combined.
Keep in mind that total energy consumption is expected to be much greater in 2040 than at present. At that time, humanity will be using an estimated 815 quadrillion BTUs (compared to approximately 600 quadrillion today). In other words, though fossil fuels will lose some of their market share to renewables, they will still experience striking growth in absolute terms. Oil consumption, for example, is expected to increase by 34% from 90 million to 121 million barrels per day by 2040. Despite all the negative publicity it’s been getting lately, coal, too, should experience substantial growth, rising from 153 to 180 quadrillion BTUs in “delivered energy” over this period. And natural gas will be the fossil-fuel champ, with global demand for it jumping by 70%. Put it all together and the consumption of fossil fuels is projected to increase by 177 quadrillion BTUs, or 38%, over the period the report surveys.
Anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of climate science has to shudder at such projections. After all, emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels account for approximately three-quarters of the greenhouse gases humans are putting into the atmosphere. An increase in their consumption of such magnitude will have a corresponding impact on the greenhouse effect that is accelerating the rise in global temperatures.
At the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris last December, delegates from more than 190 countries adopted a plan aimed at preventing global warming from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius (about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level. This target was chosen because most scientists believe that any warming beyond that will result in catastrophic and irreversible climate effects, including the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps (and a resulting sea-level rise of 10-20 feet). Under the Paris Agreement, the participating nations signed onto a plan to take immediate steps to halt the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and then move to actual reductions. Although the agreement doesn’t specify what measures should be taken to satisfy this requirement — each country is obliged to devise its own “intended nationally determined contributions” to the overall goal — the only practical approach for most countries would be to reduce fossil fuel consumption.
As the 2016 EIA report makes eye-poppingly clear, however, the endorsers of the Paris Agreement aren’t on track to reduce their consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise by an estimated 34% between 2012 and 2040 (from 32.3 billion to 43.2 billion metric tons). That net increase of 10.9 billion metric tons is equal to the total carbon emissions of the United States, Canada, and Europe in 2012. If such projections prove accurate, global temperatures will rise, possibly significantly above that 2 degree mark, with the destructive effects of climate change we are already witnessing today — the fires, heat waves, floods, droughts, storms, and sea level rise — only intensifying.
Exploring the Roots of Addiction
How to explain the world’s tenacious reliance on fossil fuels, despite all that we know about their role in global warming and those lofty promises made in Paris?
To some degree, it is undoubtedly the product of built-in momentum: our existing urban, industrial, and transportation infrastructure was largely constructed around fossil fuel-powered energy systems, and it will take a long time to replace or reconfigure them for a post-carbon future. Most of our electricity, for example, is provided by coal- and gas-fired power plants that will continue to operate for years to come. Even with the rapid growth of renewables, coal and natural gas are projected to supply 56% of the fuel for the world’s electrical power generation in 2040 (a drop of only 5% from today). Likewise, the overwhelming majority of cars and trucks on the road are now fueled by gasoline and diesel. Even if the number of new ones running on electricity were to spike, it would still be many years before oil-powered vehicles lost their commanding position. As history tells us, transitions from one form of energy to another take time.
Then there’s the problem — and what a problem it is! — of vested interests. Energy is the largest and most lucrative business in the world, and the giant fossil fuel companies have long enjoyed a privileged and highly profitable status. Oil corporations like Chevron and ExxonMobil, along with their state-owned counterparts like Gazprom of Russia and Saudi Aramco, are consistently ranked among the world’s most valuable enterprises. These companies — and the governments they’re associated with — are not inclined to surrender the massive profits they generate year after year for the future wellbeing of the planet.
As a result, it’s a guarantee that they will employ any means at their disposal (including well-established, well-funded ties to friendly politicians and political parties) to slow the transition to renewables. In the United States, for example, the politicians of coal-producing states are now at work on plans to block the Obama administration’s “clean power” drive, which might indeed lead to a sharp reduction in coal consumption. Similarly, Exxon has recruited friendly Republican officials to impede the efforts of some state attorney generals to investigate that company’s past suppression of information on the links between fossil fuel use and climate change. And that’s just to scratch the surface of corporate efforts to mislead the public that have included the funding of the Heartland Institute and other climate-change-denying think tanks.
Of course, nowhere is the determination to sustain fossil fuels fiercer than in the “petro-states” that rely on their production for government revenues, provide energy subsidies to their citizens, and sometimes sell their products at below-market rates to encourage their use. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2014 fossil fuel subsidies of various sorts added up to a staggering $493 billion worldwide — far more than those for the development of renewable forms of energy. The G-20 group of leading industrial powers agreed in 2009 to phase out such subsidies, but a meeting of G-20 energy ministers in Beijing in June failed to adopt a timeline to complete the phase-out process, suggesting that little progress will be made when the heads of state of those countries meet in Hangzhou, China, this September.
None of this should surprise anyone, given the global economy’s institutionalized dependence on fossil fuels and the amounts of money at stake. What it doesn’t explain, however, is the projected growth in global fossil fuel consumption. A gradual decline, accelerating over time, would be consistent with a broad-scale but slow transition from carbon-based fuels to renewables. That the opposite seems to be happening, that their use is actually expanding in most parts of the world, suggests that another factor is in play: addiction.
We all know that smoking tobacco, snorting cocaine, or consuming too much alcohol is bad for us, but many of us persist in doing so anyway, finding the resulting thrill, the relief, or the dulling of the pain of everyday life simply too great to resist. In the same way, much of the world now seems to find it easier to fill up the car with the usual tankful of gasoline or flip the switch and receive electricity from coal or natural gas than to begin to shake our addiction to fossil fuels. As in everyday life, so at a global level, the power of addiction seems regularly to trump the obvious desirability of embarking on another, far healthier path.
On a Fossil Fuel Bridge to Nowhere
Without acknowledging any of this, the 2016 EIA report indicates just how widespread and prevalent our fossil-fuel addiction remains. In explaining the rising demand for oil, for example, it notes that “in the transportation sector, liquid fuels [predominantly petroleum] continue to provide most of the energy consumed.” Even though “advances in nonliquids-based [electrical] transportation technologies are anticipated,” they will not prove sufficient “to offset the rising demand for transportation services worldwide,” and so the demand for gasoline and diesel will continue to grow.
Most of the increase in demand for petroleum-based fuels is expected to occur in the developing world, where hundreds of millions of people are entering the middle class, buying their first gas-powered cars, and about to be hooked on an energy way of life that should be, but isn’t, dying. Oil use is expected to grow in China by 57% between 2012 and 2040, and at a faster rate (131%!) in India. Even in the United States, however, a growing preference for sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks continues to mean higher petroleum use. In 2016, according to Edmunds.com, a car shopping and research site, nearly 75% of the people who traded in a hybrid or electric car to a dealer replaced it with an all-gas car, typically a larger vehicle like an SUV or a pickup.
The rising demand for coal follows a depressingly similar pattern. Although it remains a major source of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change, many developing nations, especially in Asia, continue to favor it when adding electricity capacity because of its low cost and familiar technology. Although the demand for coal in China — long the leading consumer of that fuel — is slowing, that country is still expected to increase its usage by 12% by 2035. The big story here, however, is India: according to the EIA, its coal consumption will grow by 62% in the years surveyed, eventually making it, not the United States, the world’s second largest consumer. Most of that extra coal will go for electricity generation, once again to satisfy an “expanding middle class using more electricity-consuming appliances.”
And then there’s the mammoth expected increase in the demand for natural gas. According to the latest EIA projections, its consumption will rise faster than any fuel except renewables. Given the small base from which renewables start, however, gas will experience the biggest absolute increase of any fuel, 87 quadrillion BTUs between 2012 and 2040. (In contrast, renewables are expected to grow by 68 quadrillion and oil by 62 quadrillion BTUs during this period.)
At present, natural gas appears to enjoy an enormous advantage in the global energy marketplace. “In the power sector, natural gas is an attractive choice for new generating plants given its moderate capital cost and attractive pricing in many regions as well as the relatively high fuel efficiency and moderate capital cost of gas-fired plants,” the EIA notes. It is also said to benefit from its “clean” reputation (compared to coal) in generating electricity. “As more governments begin implementing national or regional plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas may displace consumption of the more carbon-intensive coal and liquid fuels.”
Unfortunately, despite that reputation, natural gas remains a carbon-based fossil fuel, and its expanded consumption will result in a significant increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the EIA claims that it will generate a larger increase in such emissions over the next quarter-century than either coal or oil — a disturbing note for those who contend that natural gas provides a “bridge” to a green energy future.
Seeking Treatment
If you were to read through the EIA’s latest report as I did, you, too, might end up depressed by humanity’s addictive need for its daily fossil fuel hit. While the EIA’s analysts add the usual caveats, including the possibility that a more sweeping than expected follow-up climate agreement or strict enforcement of the one adopted last December could alter their projections, they detect no signs of the beginning of a determined move away from the reliance on fossil fuels.
If, indeed, addiction is a big part of the problem, any strategies undertaken to address climate change must incorporate a treatment component. Simply saying that global warming is bad for the planet, and that prudence and morality oblige us to prevent the worst climate-related disasters, will no more suffice than would telling addicts that tobacco and hard drugs are bad for them. Success in any global drive to avert climate catastrophe will involve tackling addictive behavior at its roots and promoting lasting changes in lifestyle. To do that, it will be necessary to learn from the anti-drug and anti-tobacco communities about best practices, and apply them to fossil fuels.
Consider, for example, the case of anti-smoking efforts. It was the medical community that first took up the struggle against tobacco and began by banning smoking in hospitals and other medical facilities. This effort was later extended to public facilities — schools, government buildings, airports, and so on — until vast areas of the public sphere became smoke-free. Anti-smoking activists also campaigned to have warning labels displayed in tobacco advertising and cigarette packaging.
Such approaches helped reduce tobacco consumption around the world and can be adapted to the anti-carbon struggle. College campuses and town centers could, for instance, be declared car-free — a strategy already embraced by London’s newly elected mayor, Sadiq Khan. Express lanes on major streets and highways can be reserved for hybrids, electric cars, and other alternative vehicles. Gas station pumps and oil advertising can be made to incorporate warning signs saying something like, “Notice: consumption of this product increases your exposure to asthma, heat waves, sea level rise, and other threats to public health.” Once such an approach began to be seriously considered, there would undoubtedly be a host of other ideas for how to begin to put limits on our fossil fuel addiction.
Such measures would have to be complemented by major moves to combat the excessive influence of the fossil fuel companies and energy states when it comes to setting both local and global policy. In the U.S., for instance, severely restricting the scope of private donations in campaign financing, as Senator Bernie Sanders advocated in his presidential campaign, would be a way to start down this path. Another would step up legal efforts to hold giant energy companies like ExxonMobil accountable for malfeasance in suppressing information about the links between fossil fuel combustion and global warming, just as, decades ago, anti-smoking activists tried to expose tobacco company criminality in suppressing information on the links between smoking and cancer.
Without similar efforts of every sort on a global level, one thing seems certain: the future projected by the EIA will indeed come to pass and human suffering of a previously unimaginable sort will be the order of the day.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.
36 Comments on "Michael Klare, Fossil Fuels Forever"
onlooker on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 4:48 pm
Humanity was unwilling to a couple of decades ago to make the difficult but doable transition to less energy intensive fuels. Now too late. We are not addicted to fossil fuels but to the comfortable lifestyles they enable in rich countries.
Apneaman on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 4:58 pm
Horayy! Horayy! Horayyy! for fossil fuels forever. Me thinks forever might end in a handful of decades……for the humans.
Think you’re hot? Spare a thought for Kuwait, as mercury hits record 54C
Weather station in unmapped northern part of nation records what might be the world’s highest ever temperature
“In Iraq a new temperature record for two consecutive days was set at Basra airport, registering 53.9C last Wednesday and Thursday. The Iraqi government responded to the sweltering conditions by closing all government offices.
The soaring temperatures have caused significant problems for the refugees who fled the fighting at Falluja.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/23/think-youre-hot-spare-a-thought-for-kuwait-as-mercury-hits-record-54c
Plantagenet on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 5:13 pm
Don’t worry. Obama’s Paris Accords outlawed global temperature increases greater than 2°C. Thank goodness we finally have a president who has actually tackled the problem of global warming head on.
And Hillary says she will follow Obama’s policies, so temperature increases over 2°C will still be forbidden during the 8 years of President Hillary regime.
Cheers!
Leader of Mankind on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 6:12 pm
Anyone stupid enough to believe in anthropogenic global warming is stupid enough to be a Democrat.
eugene on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 6:45 pm
I think anyone arrogant enough to use “leader of mankind” says it all.
Apneaman on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 6:54 pm
Hey planty, I’m not worried because minimum 2°C is already in the pipe and that’s not including the feedbacks which are very difficult to model and predict, but they will add more – already are. Plenty of information in this latest piece by Robertscribbler.
From the Arctic to Africa to the Amazon, More Troubling Signs of Earth Carbon Store Instability
“These Arctic and Siberian wildfires just keep getting worse and worse, but what’s really concerning is they’re burning a big hole through one of the Earth’s largest carbon sinks, and as they do it, they’re belching out huge plumes of greenhouse gasses.”
“Carbon Spikes over the Arctic, Africa, and the Amazon
Today, climate change-enhanced wildfires in Siberia and Africa are belching out two hellaciously huge smoke clouds (see images below). They’re also spewing large plumes of methane and carbon dioxide, plainly visible in the global atmospheric monitors. Surface methane readings in these zones exceed 2,000 parts per billion, well above the global atmospheric average.
Even as the fires rage, bubbles of methane and carbon dioxide are reportedly seeping up from beneath the tundra — generating big blisters of these heat-trapping gasses that are causing sections of the Arctic soil to jiggle like jelly. Greenhouse gas content in the blisters is, according to this Siberian Times report, 7,500 parts per million CO2 and 375 parts per million methane. That’s about 19 times current atmospheric CO2 levels and 200 times current atmospheric methane levels. Overall, these carbon jiggle mats add to reports of methane bubbling up from Arctic lakes, methane blowholes, and methane bubbling up from the Arctic Ocean in a context of very rapid Arctic warming.”
Plenty more
https://robertscribbler.com/2016/07/22/from-the-arctic-to-africa-to-the-amazon-more-concerning-signs-of-earth-carbon-store-instability/
Plantagenet on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 7:13 pm
Hi Apey
Your claim that 2° is “already in the pipe” conflicts with Obama’s claim at the Paris Accords that global warming won’t be allowed to exceed 2°C.
Awkward.
Cheers!
shortonoil on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 7:14 pm
“Anyone stupid enough to believe in anthropogenic global warming is stupid enough to be a Democrat. “
Are the IIPC models correct, maybe, maybe not. They have an awfully large margin of error for a scientific study (±20%). That is a pretty big hole for a false positive to crawl through. The subject has been widely publicized, and more than $1 billion has been thrown at it. It has generated a political odor, that science should obviously distrust.
The question didn’t need a $1 billion to answer, and thousands of people screaming at each other. The data is right there in front of us, and all it takes to answer the question is a $39 TI calculator, and some background in physics. It’s the later that puts most people on hold.
The world generates 505 quad BTU per year, 83% of that coming from fossil fuels. That is enough heat to increase the temperature of all the world’s oceans 1 °F every 32 years. We generate all that heat right down on the surface, with a 20 mile thick blanket of atmosphere to keep it from radiating off into space.
If one puts a turkey in the oven, and turns on the heat, it cooks. That is what we are doing to planet earth. Think about it over Thanksgiving Diner this year. You will get a much better understanding for how the turkey feels.
Of course if we elect Hildigard we won’t have to worry about it. When you are sick from radiation poisoning a higher temperature will probably feel good.
JuanP on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 8:03 pm
Hey, “Leader of Mankind”, I am a man and you are not my leader, therefore you are not the leader of mankind. Now try and refute that logic. LOL!
Apneaman on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 9:14 pm
short, so what about the geological record that shows a number of extinction periods and mass extinctions happening after massive releases of CO2 from volcanic traps? Like the worst one of all the permian extinction. Were the megafauna industrialized and driving cars N stuff giving off waste heat? Short you know how you constantly bring up the laws of physics to support your model? They apply all round you know. Talk about cherry picking. Obviously you are not keeping up if you are bringing up the IPCC ( you even got the acronym wrong). The IPCC models are ultra conservative and way behind the current science which can’t even keep up with the speed of change and most scientists hardly refer to them anymore. Passe. It was created, in part so TPTB had some control over the how it would be presented and the policy recommendations section is corrupted by various governments lawyer fish. Any one on top of AGW would know this – you don’t because you don’t do your AGW homework like you do your oil depletion homework. Maybe because you already decided about GW long ago? Found a theory that made you feel warm and fuzzy (guilt free). Yeah, that what it smells like to me. There is just as much evidence for AGW as there is for evolution or gravity. Let me put it to you this way, you know when someone, say, like Boat has his version of depletion and the future of oil and it’s contrary to your position and no matter how much evidence you provide you are always wrong because his cognitive dissonance won’t let him accept reality? That’s what you look like to me and anyone else with a basic understanding of physics, atmospheric chemistry and AGW every time you whip out your tired pet waste heat theory. Oh well, whatever eh? The humans need their comforting stories. Always with the fucking stories. More stories on this planet than stars in the sky. We’re past the science now anyway. It’s all just make work science projects and getting paid now. Scientists have families, mortgages, bills and are caught in the trap same as everyone. I have rarely posted any studies in the last year because they are no longer needed. Just ongoing and escalating consequences. It’s a full time job. If you been reading that tard Anthony Watts – Stop it.
It’s waste heat
“What the science says…
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm
Apneaman on Sat, 23rd Jul 2016 9:26 pm
Planty, I don’t listen to anything that the current teleprompter reading POTUS says. 2C is a political/economic target conjured up by economist William Nordhaus. The scientific target for danger was 1C, which is where we are at now. 2C is a lock and you got all those unstoppable feedback. like Alaska – it’s a carbon bomb and it is already in meltdown as you are aware.
Two degree climate target not possible without ‘negative emissions’, scientists warn
“All of our options for keeping warming below 2C above pre-industrial temperatures now involve capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground – a technology that doesn’t yet exist on a large scale, according to new research.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/two-degree-climate-target-not-possible-without-negative-emissions-scientists-warn
Survivable IPCC projections are based on science fiction – the reality is much worse
The IPCC’s ‘Representative Concentration Pathways’ are based on fantasy technology that must draw massive volumes of CO2 out of the atmosphere late this century, writes Nick Breeze – an unjustified hope that conceals a very bleak future for Earth, and humanity.
“Dr Nutt’s conclusion points to very important factor that we can elaborate on with a rare case of certainty. There is no proposed CDR technology that can be scaled up to suck billions of tonnes out of the Earth’s atmosphere. It simply does not exist in the real world.
This is reiterated by Dr Hugh Hunt in the Department of Engineering, at the University of Cambridge, who points out:
“10 billion tonnes a year of carbon sequestration? We don’t do anything on this planet on that scale. We don’t manufacture food on that scale, we don’t mine iron ore on that scale. We don’t even produce coal, oil or gas on that scale. Iron ore is below a billion tonnes a year! How are we going to create a technology, from scratch, a highly complicated technology, to the tune of 10 billion tonnes a year in the next 10 years?”
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2772427/survivable_ipcc_projections_are_based_on_science_fiction_the_reality_is_much_worse.html
Brad on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 3:03 am
Computer illiterate Apneaman managed to make yet another thread unreadable with his barbaric long links.
*** tinyurl.com ***
regardingpo on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 4:38 am
Brad, you are just plain illiterate if you’re not capable of skipping two lines of blue letters between many lines of black letters.
Has it occured to you that some of us prefer it when people don’t shorten their links? Because that way we can see what they’re linking to before we click on it.
peakyeast on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 6:29 am
@Brad: regard is right. Just keep to
attacking apneaman directly – no need to use strawmen when your agenda is so clear.
shortonoil on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 7:23 am
“short, so what about the geological record that shows a number of extinction periods and mass extinctions happening after massive releases of CO2 from volcanic traps? “
Regardless of what happens to the CO2 level, if we don’t cut back on the heat generation we are going to cook the planet. The heat is the problem, not the CO2; we know that because things are getting hotter. Civilization is going to have to learn to live with a lot less energy consumption, or there isn’t going to be any civilization. Once that is accomplished, by reduced life styles, or reduced population the CO2 problem is likely to solve itself. The planet earth can not continue to function with 7.2 billion people each using 70 million BTU per year.
JuanP on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 7:43 am
I am afraid that I have to side with Brad on the long links observation.
But, Brad, Apneaman already knows about tinyurl.com, he chooses not to use it.
The thread has become unreadable on my iPad.
I hate when this happens.
I have started using tinyurl.com to avoid causing this.
When I use a tiny url link I usually provide the linked title and source on my comment.
JuanP on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 7:46 am
Does anyone here know how to fix this and make the thread readable on my iPad?
I am NOT particularly computer literate myself!
ghung on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 9:21 am
No need for tinyurl if one knows a little html. The Oil Drum put up a simple primer years ago for those who are html-challenged. Anchors used to make links to other pages is the first example. Other examples include bold, italic, etc….
Kenz300 on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 9:49 am
Climate Change is real….. we will all be impacted by it……
Exxon’s Climate Change Cover-Up Is ‘Unparalleled Evil,’ Says Activist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-evil-bill-mckibben_561e7362e4b028dd7ea5f45f?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green§ion=green
Koch Brothers Continue to Fund Climate Change Denial Machine, Spend $21M to Defend Exxon
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/22/koch-defends-exxon/
Big Coal Funded This Prominent Climate Change Denier, Docs Reveal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/roy-spencer-peabody-energy_us_57601e12e4b053d43306535e
Pope Francis’s edict on climate change will anger deniers and US churches | World news | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/27/pope-francis-edict-climate-change-us-rightwing
Head Of The Episcopal Church Says It’s ‘Sinful’ To Ignore Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/katherine-jefferts-schori-climate-change_n_6949532.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
rockman on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 9:52 am
Leader – “Anyone stupid enough to believe in anthropogenic global warming is stupid enough to be a Democrat.” Well then the Rockman (with 40 years as a petroleum geologist) be consider stupid. LOL. The Rockman understood the potential of AGW when he was an undergrad student in the early 70’s. Is there also a natural cause for climate change? Quite possibly. Which likely produces much of the debate.
And if tomorrow someone came up with irrefutable evidence of AGW would our fossil fuel consumption path change significantly? No IMHO. FF production has been, is now and always will be the priority of the vast majority of the world’s population. Which is why most politians won’t force any meaningful change less they are run out of office. Lots of empty promises, of course. But no real actions.
BTW the Rockman is not a supporter of either the D or R parties. But most here understand he would be classified as an independent conservative. But being a conservative doesn’t mean one has to ignore AGW.
Apneaman on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 10:17 am
IT’s all good short. Keep up the good work.
Davy on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 10:34 am
I have been dwelling recently on AGW. I have to be outdoors having a 400 acre farm with cows, goats, chickens, garden, pasture, and buildings to care for. There are activities I can do to get out of the weather some but mostly I have to endure it. Lately we have had a heat dome over the Midwest. Heat indices have been 100-108F. Humidity is such that if you get in a place where there is direct sun and little wind you can quickly overheat. You cover in sweat then the really bad heating occurs. This is common knowledge but I am not sure how many of you deal with this daily at multiple times during the day. I have been getting out at first light and working into the sunset to get some work done without the pain which has helped. I take lots of breaks in the worst part of the day but it is still not enough because I tend to push the envelope of safe. I have more to do than I have time and money to do so I do not have the luxury of taking off.
I read robertscribbler.com a couple of days ago, “ From the Arctic to Africa to the Amazon, More Troubling Signs of Earth Carbon Store Instability”. I like ape man follow him regularly. This latest article by him is sobering. This is it, our climate is clearly destabilizing and quickly. I am thinking about how it would be if I had to do what I am doing now with even worse heat in a situation maybe with an unstable grid from a collapse process we talk about so often here. This may mean no AC to cool and recover in after pushing a safe envelope of heating. Maybe I will be short on food or need medicine and not have it. I think about my kids who are 9 and how bad things are going to be for them in as little as 10 years. I laid in bed last night thinking about climate change, exciting huh?, right. It will be bad in a few years but I am talking a possible really bad scenario in 10 years. We are going to have a peak oil dynamics situation with a collapsing economy along with a destabilized climate, WTF.
I am permaculture farming now and struggling. I have the time, money, and a good setup. How the hell are we as a people going to make it with these type of challenges? People are so far up their asses in denial of the bad shit in the pipeline. I have been a doomer for years now but I know it is one thing to be academic with it and another thing to live it. I also recognize our body and minds evolve, devolve and age over time. I may be acclimated to collapse now but in a few years I may be a changed person an unable to deal with it as I am now. I live this shit now. I am talking the talk and walking the walk but tomorrow is a new day and me a day older. I am getting older and weaker as the challenges increase and strengthen. This trend is not my friend. My ass is going to get kicked here on out and then I will die.
Robert Scibbler’s articles are amazing in their detail and profound implications. We are seeing the death of an amazing Holocene Epoch and the birth of a new and dangerous one. I know there are many who think the worst of climate change will not be in our lifetime but reading Scibbler’s articles I am not so sure. I think we are going to see cascading failures in our ecosystem that will leave us with a different world in as little as 10 years. Today is another bad day here in the Missouri Ozarks. I have to get some goat fence done so I can get the goats moved to a new paddock with some awesome forage. The garden must be watered. This weather is dangerous and mean and I feel this is going to be the new normal. I hate this but that is the Shit and I am trying to make the best of it.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 11:00 am
Davy — If it is going to be that hot in the Ozarks from here on out, now might be a good time to switch your wardrobe out for flowing white robes and turbans, and think about raising camels instead of goats. Oh yeah, you’re probably going to need a harem while you’re at it, just to alleviate the long hot days of continual boredom.
Here in Pacific Northwest, where I live at least, we are having a pretty damn nice (temperate) summer so far. Especially compared to last year’s summer which broke all previous heat records. I mean that was hot summer, Southern California HOT, day after day without break — verrrry unusual for this area.
Speaking of climate change, Reverse Engineer over at Doomstead Diner has a new post on exactly this topic. Very interesting read. I tend to agree with him that some climate change focused doomers are a little too pessimistic in their predictions. If a few wandering pre-oil-age nomads in the Saudi desert could survive that constant heat, then a former goat-raising farmer in the Ozarks ought to be able to do the same. Sure, the equatorial and nearby zones might become uninhabitable, but there will be geographical pockets where I am sure that scraggly humans will be able to eek out a bare subsistence.
Too much to worry about and plan for without throwing in all the unknowns associated with climate change. I’m counting on rapid depopulation to greatly reduce CO2 and other industrial emissions and to give planet earth a chance to heal herself. Who knows? For those that make it through the bottleneck, it might not end up being so bad after all.
Davy on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 11:19 am
NR, actually we had many weeks of wonderful temps with plenty of rain. But that is how it seems to be changing with the jet stream meandering into longer weather patterns with more intensity. During this period of lovely weather I knew the shit was coming. I live in a continental climate and this climate is one of extremes punctuated by lovely weather. I know the extremes are going to get worse and the lovely weather less. Yet, I am wondering if the worst of what we get in the winter will be less. Maybe the winter months will be the new nice season. As for the goats they are probably the best animal for my local going into climate change. They take the heat well and they don’t need a lot of water like my cattle do. They eat about anything so what survives the coming drought they can eat. Cattle are more dependent on good grasses that will go dormant in the coming droughts. Another good thing about goats is they can browse the woody areas. I am into goats because they are what I see as a good animal for the coming destabilized climate regime we are heading for.
ghung on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 11:33 am
Some of us who grew up in the hot/humid south know how to adapt to these heat spells. Stay out of air conditioned spaces as much as possible, drink lots of water, and slow down. Also, know your limitations. I often need to work in the high tunnel (greenhouse) during the day where it is generally much hotter than outdoors, even mornings and evenings. If I get woozy, I go outside where 90 degrees feels cool; find some shade and drink a couple of liters of water. Eventually, a healthy body adapts.
Apneaman on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 12:05 pm
rockman, what do you mean by natural? Are the humans not natural? A product of the earth and evolutionary forces? Yes. If you are suggesting another cause for GW than fossil fuel burning, deforestation, industrial agriculture and other human activities there in no evidence to suggest that and overwhelming evidence that it’s human activities that are the drivers. The humans are the trigger and the CO2 is the single biggest physical factor. The humans abstract brain is what is at the root of almost all their predicaments. Oh and for all those with a certain worldview that prevents them from accepting reality – here’s another bit of fossil fuel burning reality for y’all to try and minimize, rationalize away and/or filter out.
The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-last-time-our-oceans-got-this-acidic-it-drove-earths-greatest-extinction
Ocean acidification drove Earth’s largest mass extinction
http://earthsky.org/earth/ocean-acidification-drove-earths-largest-mass-extinction
GLOBAL WARMING’S EVIL TWIN: OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
Climate change isn’t the only consequence of carbon pollution from fossil fuels. If driving global temperature rise wasn’t enough, increased carbon in our atmosphere is also behind the rapid acidification of our world’s oceans.
“SO, EXACTLY WHAT IS OCEAN ACIDIFICATION?
Our oceans are an incredible carbon sink — they absorb about 25 percent of the carbon dioxide humans produce every year. But this is changing sea surface chemistry dramatically: when carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean, it dissolves to form carbonic acid. The result, not surprisingly, is that the ocean becomes more acidic, upsetting the delicate pH balance that millions and millions of organisms rely on.
Since the Industrial Revolution, our seas have become about 30 percent more acidic, a rate not observed in 300 million years. This has a wide range of consequences for marine ecosystems, as well as for the billions of people who depend on the ocean for food and survival.”
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/global-warming-ocean-acidification
It’s a carbon planet and the same scenario has played out a number of times in the planet’s past.
Volcanism releasing massive quantities of CO2 leading to GW & Ocean acidification causing small extinction events and mass extinctions.
New twist.
Humans digging up and burning the carbon releasing massive quantities of CO2 leading to GW & Ocean acidification causing mass extinction(6th).
Only the humans do it much faster than any so called “natural” process has, but since we are, in fact, natural then it’s all good.
shortonoil on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 5:28 pm
“IT’s all good short. Keep up the good work. “
Global energy accumulation and heat admission
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Nordell-Gervet2009ijgw.pdf
Here is a study that was done at UTex a few years ago. What it does tell us is that the GW phenomena is a lot more complex than just CO2. The earth receives 28.65 x 10^18 BTU per day from solar radiation. 144 times the energy released each year from burning petroleum. 26% of that still remains unaccounted for. Global warming is a reality, but to place all the blame on humans is just not supported by the data that we have. Some of it is very likely anthropogenic in origin; exactly how much has not yet been answered?
Jerry McManus on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 5:36 pm
@Apneaman
I like your links, don’t change a thing.
What the people complaining don’t realize is that should your post ever be converted to plain text and the HTML stripped out, such as by an archive, even then your links could still be followed by a simple copy and paste into a browser address bar.
TinyURL sucks!
Apneaman on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 5:50 pm
Thanks Jerry. I have to admit my ignorance about this tinyURL deal. Is it a smart phone thingy? I don’t have one or any phone for that matter. All the links look fine on my lap top. Someone enlighten me.
Boat on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 7:08 pm
short,
That study was out of date but excellent and relevant on sources of heat. The biggest culprit is coal and oil. The heat cannot be beat.
JuanP on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 8:11 pm
Ap, I normally read this on my iPad.
Sometimes someone posts a very long link on their comments.
Then all the comments on the thread run off the right side of the page on my iPad.
When that happens the whole thread becomes impossible to read for me.
I will read it on my Windows laptop later to see what happens there.
I, of course, don’t want you to stop posting links.
I read many of your links and I find them very interesting.
I come here mostly for the comments and the links.
I usually skip the articles here at PO since they tend to suck.
Boat on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 8:27 pm
JuanP,
http://www.phillips66.com/EN/products/business/crude_oil/gravityscale/Pages/index.aspx
Tell me if you understand this chart.
Davy on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 8:32 pm
Juan, when I am on my IPhone which I use when I am working during the day it seems all comments run off the edge. I am wondering why the site managers can’t correct this. Surely this is not difficult to fix. I often find I only get 3/4 of the discussion because of the drop off of words.
Boat on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 9:24 pm
https://www.afpm.org/uploadedFiles/Refining-US-Capacity.pdf
This is a chart of US oil production. Notice how the api above 50 is less than than 10 percent in any given year. Even 50-55 api is docked less than conventional oils around the world with an api under 25.
So I believe the charts show us tight oil and shale oil to be as valuable as
conventional oil. In fact once you get past an api of 25 the market docks conventional more. Lets look at US volumes with imports.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26132
Over 50 percent of heavy oil imported is docked. US docked camel pee is much smaller in volume and penalty.
Apneaman on Sun, 24th Jul 2016 9:29 pm
short, WTF. One of the rare occasions I attempt to bow out gracefully and you throw that crap study up. WTF?
One of the authors of that paper, Bo Anders Nordell, is Professor of Water Resources water engineer. I guess he teaches young white boy engineer types to count toilet flushes or some shit like that. Check this out from his bio.
“Background
As of January, 2003, Bo Nordell has been the head of the Division for Renewable Energy at Luleå University where he is also a professor. He has worked in the fields of thermal energy storage, and “Snow/ice-related problems.” Bo Nordell is skeptical that carbon dioxide has a large influence on climate change. [2]
Like some other climate change skeptics (notably Nils-Axel Morner) Nordell believes in “dowsing,” the process of locating buried objects and materials like water, gemstones, ores, graves, etc. While a number of scientific studies have found dowsing to be no more effective than chance, Nordell has said that he “strongly believe[s] that there is no doubt that the dowsing reaction is a physical reality.” [3]”
Sounds like a magical thinker to me – someone who sees what he wants to see. Further he is not a trained in the subject. Not that it’s merely an argument from authority or credentials, but at this level it counts. You list your credentials – why if not to lend weight to your position?
“Astrophysicist Eric J. Chaisson, who has also written in peer-reviewed journals on the subject, argues that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is far more important to preventing climate change than reducing waste heat, even though both are factors: “I do think that the Swedish authors have greatly overestimated the effects of anthropogenic heating currently, and they seem completely unaware of other, detailed work on the same topic that has been done within the past year by other researchers,” Chaisson told THE FUTURIST magazine. [6]”
http://www.desmogblog.com/bo-nordell
As I have asked before, why is there a group of intelligent, white men, many conservative leaning, engineer & maths types that are such ardent “skeptics” of AGW? This Bo Nordell dude and his co author Bruno Gervet and guys like Bjørn Lomborg et al are the scandinavian contingent of this unofficial denier,( not skeptics y’all denying), group. How can it be that this particular lot of guys with a similar profile are the only ones who know the truth or know that the people who actually devote their lives to studying earth systems and are qualified are wrong. Is that like a genetic deal short? Maybe y’all on special vitamins or brain supplements that give yous guys special scientific insight that mere mortals with Phd’s in physics and atmospheric chemistry could only hope to obtain. Yeah. You know what I see? A loose group of white boys who share a similar ideology, education and way of thinking who go to great lengths to come up with any explanation why GW is not humans or only a little bit humans. Of course the one length they never seem to go to is actually getting the formal education and studying GW as a professional even though they put out as much or more time and effort than it takes to get a Phd – some of em are completely obsessed with disproving or minimizing AGW, An obsession like that can only be born of religion/ideology. These guys are not the dumbed down, flag wavers and religious Rush Limbaugh listening fools, but rather a sub set of denier skeptics. No they are bright guys and that’s why they can come up with complex arguments. They sort of remind me of those Bible Code fellas a bit – finding things that are not there. I’ve noticed that some who are highly numerate have this ability to make the numbers say whatever they want – like economists and marmi. If you don’t like what the data and numbers say, the just recount it in a more satisfactory way. Much of this takes place subconsciously. The humans.
It’s me, it’s you, it’s CO2
It’s waste heat
What the science says…
“The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.”
“When humans use energy, it gives off heat. Whenever we burn fossil fuels, heat is emitted. This heat doesn’t just disappear – it dissipates into our environment. How much does waste heat contribute to global warming? This has been calculated in Flanner 2009 (if you want to read the full paper, access details are posted here). Flanner contributes that the contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2 (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Waste heat is about 1% of greenhouse warming.”
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=176&p=4
I really ment it when I said keep up the good work.
Kenz300 on Mon, 25th Jul 2016 7:23 am
Clean energy production with wind and solar………….
Clean energy consumption with electric vehicles……….
That is the future……. the only question is when will we get there……………….
Wind and solar are already safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels in many parts of the world and getting cheaper every day…..
Watch The Climate Change Ad Fox News Didn’t Want Its Viewers To See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-ad-fox-news_us_57892a37e4b03fc3ee50c207?section=