US Military *shrill* on supply constraints

(Edit note for 26 April 2010: The US military do NOT yet appear ready to admit this is a result of the geological constraints of peak oil, but are in fact only discussing supply constraints. Apparently they think one can just pump more money into the industry and more oil will appear! If we just build more rigs and employ more geologists, God will race out and stick more oil in the ground for them to discover! 😉

Originally Posted by The Guardian UK, April 11, 2010

The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact. The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel.”

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day,” says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis.

It adds: “While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India.

“The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with “an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Peak Oil. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to US Military *shrill* on supply constraints

  1. pyrotex says:

    It’s interesting what the military warning does NOT say. Without lots of surplus oil, our military will not be able to engage in the kinds of wars or police actions we are currently doing. In the long run, time is on the side of the insurgents and the terrorists who have no dependence on massive quantities of oil. And the ‘long run’ doesn’t look nearly as long as it used to.

  2. eclipsenow says:

    Yes, that’s an interesting point. However, I found the implications of 10 mbd down by 2015 quite staggering… will airlines still be running for non-ESSENTIAL non-government business? We’re only talking 5 years away, and the world’s oil supply could be down by about an eighth!

    Wow, now that the US Military are talking 10 mbd by 2015…. I’m starting to actually believe some of my desperate, older views again. Severe rationing, Greater Depression, airlines and international tourism bankrupting, etc….

  3. mmgwisbs says:

    Don’t stress – there are huge reserves still waiting to be tapped in the Falklands:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/7266031/Royal-Navy-warships-on-standby-over-Falklands-oil-dispute.html

    Cuba:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/18/cuban-oil

    Haiti:
    http://www.worldoil.com/Haiti_could_have_larger_oil_reserves_than_Venezuela.html

    Fact is there is a huge basin that extends from Cuba to Venezuela. That’s a hell of lot of dead squid – if you believe that kind of thing 🙂

    • eclipsenow says:

      Sorry mate but there’s no substance in any of those articles.

      1. How much recoverable oil do all 3 sites add up to?
      2. What will their maximum oil output PER DAY add up to at the peak of their production?
      3. I bet you it doesn’t add up to 10mbd.

      EG: Cuba. 20 billion barrels. We’re all saved! Oh, except the world currently consumes over 84 million barrels per day. That means about 30 billion barrels a year. So even if they CONFIRM Cuba’s new discoveries (and it hasn’t been confirmed yet) congratulations, that’s 8 months of world oil. Your Haiti link says their estimates don’t even make 1 billion barrels of oil, which would be less than a fortnight’s oil. Try again.

      Basically, with world oil consumption growing at about 3% per year, that 3% growth of such a HUGE consumption pattern means we’d need to find a new Saudia Arabia every 3 to 4 years, not piddly little puddles like Cuba and Haiti.

      Then consider that it is going to take 5 to 6 years to bring any new production online, and that we can’t just magically suck all that oil out in one go. I have trouble believing either of these projects will amount to more than 2 or 3 million barrels a day! Say they both reached 3mbd… an accumulative production of 6mbd. That might delay world peak oil about 2 years, because once the decline sets in it is likely to be about a million barrels / day for every year after this year. There are varying projections from varying geologists, and so depending on how badly you think some super-giant oil fields have been damaged will affect how fast you think the decline sets in.

      So at a baseline level the US military projects 10 million down by 2015… assuming the best possible production for Cuba and Haiti and impossibly quick time frames to develop them, the world will STILL be down about 4 million barrels a day! Right when India and China are coming online as big oil consuming nations.

      Sorry, I don’t see an answer here. People like yourself stumble into a few newspaper announcements about ‘big oil discoveries’ and don’t have the background to realise just how insignificant they are on a global scale.

      I note your email address is for “Gordon”. If you are the same Gordon I was just trying to engage over at BNC, (and apologies in advance if you are not the same “Gordon”), I’d ask you to:-
      * try and address the most pertinent data in your quotes
      * ALWAYS back claims with links (as you have attempted to do here)
      * actually address the points I make as part of your response, if you are in fact going to respond.

      If you behave here as you did on BNC, I’ll have to ban you as a troll.

  4. mmgwisbs says:

    Hi David,

    Yes it is Gordon here 🙂

    The point I am trying to make is that if you look at a map of the Carribenn Sea and believe in the Biotic theory of oil creation then you are potentially looking at an oil field that extends from Cuba to Venezuela. Call me sceptical, call me conspiratorial (I think you already have) but I would not be at all surprised if reserves are being held back to keep prices up. I think the Falklands are an example of this, the British know something we don’t – let’s bleed the Middle East (in more ways than one) and keep our private stash(s) for the future…

    We shouldn’t get too wound up in scare campaigns – Peak Oil is one and the new kid on the block is AGW (I’m sure you would notice that Peak Oil has taken a back seat in the last couple of years but on the balance of things it would be a greater threat to Mankind than AGW!, which, incidently – is still a theory).

    So David, call me a Troll but how you like to attack speaks volumes about your character. My aim is to open peoples minds – make them think independently, question the status quo and think outside the accepted/forced paradigm.

  5. eclipsenow says:

    * Oil requires a very specific layering of 5 rock types to store and capture the oil in just the right depths. Not low enough and it won’t have ‘cooked’ properly. Too low and it will have become too hot and cooked off into natural gas. In other words, it requires a VERY specific set of conditions.

    They KNOW where to find oil! They’ve FOUND all the cheap stuff.

    Don’t forget the ONE big point about peak oil… it’s about maximum flow rates per year being maintained and increased by 2 to 3% per year, every year.

    It is NOT about the size of resources in Alberta tar sands or someone’s shale oil or coal-to-liquids. All these things may have a place the other side of peak oil, but they absolutely will not be able to compensate for or stop about a 3% to 5% decline in oil production per year the other side of peak.

    If we answer the following questions we’ll have a clearer perspective about why I’m a bit worked up over this (other than being mighty peeved with NSW politicians I briefed on it way back in mid 2005!)

    A few questions if you need some references to think through this issue:

    1. Which decade did we discover the most oil?

    2. How has the discovery of conventional oil been going since then?

    Keep in mind that oil is probably only 2nd to the military in terms of the money and technology available to their enterprise. Big oil have BILLIONS at their disposal for the latest discovery technologies.

    3. What is the ratio of discovery to consumption? Are we discovering more than we use, or less? How good or ‘bad’ is the ratio?

    4. How long has the trend been in this direction?

    5. How many oil producing countries have already peaked and are in irreversible decline?

    6. Which countries are still able increase production and have not reached their all time historical peak??

    7. Do these nations allow the international community to audit their reserves to the verify this claim, or are they closed to outside audit? In other words, is there an ‘international oil cop’ with a giant dipstick that can actually check whether OPEC reports have real barrels or just paper barrels in their books?

    8. If domestic consumption of oil exporting nations rises too fast (because of a booming domestic economy), how quickly can domestic consumption outpace their ability to export post peak? (Hint: there are historical precedents — google “Export Land Model”).

    9. If those few exporting nations that are left suddenly DO decide to keep the oil for their own economies, how relevant is a global depletion rate of 5% per annum if the OIL MARKET has collapsed because hardly any nations are selling?

    Get back to us on this ASAP please, it should be very entertaining.

  6. mmgwisbs says:

    I’m a believer in the abiotic therory of oil production.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin (know you like Wiki 🙂 )

    1. It is still to come! We have only scatched the surface – literally.

    2. Slow for (conspiratorial) reasons I mentioned before.

    3. See 1 & 2 !

    4. The longer the better – for the shareholders.

    5. The US military machine is working on them, China on the other hand likes to negotiate with them.

    6. Corporations would be the better descriptor.

    7. Natons like to think they control Corporations, however, the truth is very much the other way around.

    8. I will have to digest this one although after a precursory look I am amused to see Iran in the mix – the very reason they wish to go nuclear but we can’t have that now can we.

    9. See 1. !

    You can get off the ground now !

  7. eclipsenow says:

    Basically, even the first paragraph of the wiki *you quoted* indicates that it is basically a huge Soviet mistake with no backing, and an extreme fringe theory at best. Wikipedia tends to politely call the nutters nutters, but in a slightly more academic manner.

    If you believe in abiogenic oil, how fast is the oil chemically / geologically replenishing itself? Is it going to take 10 thousand years to refill the old wells, or only 5000 years? Why have no peaked out countries wells started to refill yet? When will they refill by? Why haven’t we seen any refilling? Where’s the extra oil? Even if your ‘theory’ (and I’m using the term loosely) is true, it isn’t doing the oil engineers any practical good. The wells are still depleted.

    You need to hang out with some *real* oil engineers online a bit more. Why does the BILLIONS of dollars in oil R&D back the biogenic oil scenario? Why do the geologists hunt for oil on the biogenic basis? Why does the ‘dinosaur-aglae’ theory pay off in better discoveries? Why doesn’t the oil industry promote this theory, which would be so good for their market share?

    The REALITY is that the decade when humanity discovered the most oil we EVER will was back in 1965, new discoveries have been dropping for the last 45 years, we now find only a quarter of the oil that we burn each year (resulting in us burning up the oil our grandparents discovered), and abiogenic oil is a crutch for Denialists like yourself that just can’t face the coming Greater Depression.
    Discovery today

    See this graph? See the green down the bottom? That’s not a projection, that’s the historical FACT of USA oil production over the last 45 years.

    They all know and admit that they’ve peaked out. Hubbert modelled that American oil would peak in 1970 and said so 14 years prior, in a Shell oil speech in 1956.

    Nothing but nothing can stop oil production failing to meet demand this decade.

  8. mmgwisbs says:

    Dave,

    I’m not the one who is scared 🙂

    • eclipsenow says:

      Me? Scared? Maybe once-upon-a time… back when my boy was very sick and I suddenly discovered all this stuff. I can admit that. But that was about 6 years ago. Now I’m more fascinated, in a kind of morbid way, as to how all of this is going to unfold.

      I did my bit when my kid had cancer, but now I’m pretty much retired from campaigning. I did all I could, but people like you just don’t want to bother with the math or thinking beyond today. It’s a bit infantile, but that’s society for you. A world preoccupied with Big Brother and the ‘Brangelina’ doesn’t have time for counting barrels of oil and ticking off a map of the world as each country and region peaks.

      Anyway, the only reason you’re *not* concerned is that you’re incapable of processing peer-reviewed science that threatens your Pollyanna view of the world.
      Pollyanna

      It’s interesting that you seem to admit in your last comment that your basis for ‘truth’ is what makes you feel good.

  9. eclipsenow says:

    Gordon,
    for the sake of my own honesty I have to bring to your attention my latest post. The US military are NOT on about peak oil in this report: they are on about supply constraints. It appears that they still believe they can just go out and dig for more oil… despite the discovery trends and most of the planet already being explored by billions of dollars of R&D and wildcat money.

    See
    https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/i-may-have-mispoken-us-military-not-predicting-peak-oil/

    The reality is all the world’s most important geologists see peak oil happening soon. Even the Australian Federal Taskforce into it concluded that the early peakers had credible questions that Big Oil just were not answering.

    But in America, even in the military, it seems this kind of thinking is so counter-intuitive to all American cultural expectations, they are just blind to the mere possibility that oil might be finite. Like so many other people I know.

  10. mmgwisbs says:

    David,

    Sorry to hear about your son’s illness, that is something no parent want’s to experience.

    I remember the Peak Oil scare in the 80’s, however, the “collapse” date kept getting moved – which gave an armageddon cult feel to it. Present forecasts give us until 2030 until we hit the peak, in which case our lives would have been mostly “lived” and it will only be the security of our children that will concern us. There may well be energy wars but Humanity will survive and the human race will continue, albeit at possibly lower numbers.

    On AGW, there is no peer reviewed study that proves CO2 is responisble for warming the planet. The greatest threat to the Human Race is from itself, the fight to see who will be top dog is possibly closer than you think. Those decisions are being made on our behalf and we don’t have a say in it, like you say the best we can do is to “Be Prepared”.

    Just on abiogenic oil – if oil is from algae, as theorised, then why don’t we see any magnesium? The same applies with black coal which like oil contains sulphur. Brown coal (dried peat) does contain significant quantites of magnesium.

    PS Pollyanna was a nice movie and I don’t think that the values protrayed would necessarily be detrimental society.

  11. eclipsenow says:

    Hi Gordon,
    I edited some of the crankier stuff out of my comments above as sometimes my desperation for society to ‘get it’ and take action over these matters spills over into how I relate to detractors online.

    My point about Pollyanna was not a dig at the whole movie’s values, but the sense that we can’t pick and choose ‘the truth’ depending on how it makes us feel. The realities of this world might not be the way we wish them to be. We can’t just brush aside peak oil as if it were some silly nonsense when all the facts and figures add up to strife in the next few years.

    EG: This thread is about how even the peak oil denying US Military can see that there will be ‘supply constraints’ of oil shortages in the order of 10 million barrels by 2015.

    That’s only 5 years away. Do you know why they admit this? Because 15 of the top 30 oil countries are already passed their peak and are in permanent decline. This decline of oil from today’s oil producing states is a measurable phenomenon.

    You haven’t addressed any of this, or answered why there isn’t any extra oil if it is abiotic? When has an oil field ever refilled itself?

    Who makes these ‘present forecasts’ of oil till 2030? Their methodologies are no doubt affected by their probability math… they’re using P50 instead of P95.

    That is, peak oilers are demanding that we count the oil we KNOW we have access to and can produce at a certain price, that we are 95% sure of. The US Department of Energy has some wild attempts at guessing the 5% chance that there might be 4 trillion barrels of conventional oil on earth, and then decides that counting the stuff we’re 95% of is too depressing, so they’ll go halfway towards the 5% chance and just *act* as if there’s a 50% chance that the world has 3 trillion barrels of conventional oil.

    Except that if there is ANY question over our oil supply, which even you just admitted could cause conflicts… do we want to play wishful thinking?

    I for one want to KNOW what they KNOW we have. I want them reporting only the P95% certain figures… and not mixing it with the P50 stuff.

    We are 95% certain we have burnt 1 trillion barrels of the 2 trillion barrels of fairly conventional oil on earth.

    We can see it in the discovery V consumption trends, which you have not addressed.

    We ARE burning it roughly 5 times faster than we’re finding it.

    And here’s the worst thing about all this… there ARE attractive things we could be doing about peak oil right now, IF our governments were brave enough to admit it. But they don’t… because it would probably cause another massive stockmarket crash.

    You said some interesting things about Co2, and I only have time to address you to the wiki and ask you to chase up the footnotes. This stuff is physics 101. Don’t you like spectrometry? No published denialists I know of deny this because they’d look like even worse idiots than they already are.

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

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

  12. eclipsenow says:

    Hi Gordon,
    did you ever have another think about the physics of Co2? Why don’t you believe the basic spectrometry?

    This goes into it in more detail.
    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-1/

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-2/

    And as I already said over at BNC, there’s always the Candle movie (at 90 seconds in).

    When you can see the candle’s heat through the thermal camera lense until the Co2 fills the tube between candle and camera, and all the heat is refracted all over the place, surely that tells even your eyes that Co2 refracts heat all about the place?

    The climatologists are not claiming ALL the sunlight bouncing off the earth as heat is trapped, just a small proportion of it.

    Enough to heat 3watts / meter square.

    3 Christmas lights / meter square.

    Enough over time to melt the poles and Greenland, raise sea levels, burn the Amazon basin, change the Monsoons, change agricultural zones on the planet and melt the glaciers. (The glaciers disappearing is admittedly much later than previously thought, but still a threat).

    This is the latest, cutting edge science, and you’ve just decided you don’t like it? I’m baffled by that. Unless you’re a climatologist yourself, aren’t you being a little arrogant to claim they’re all wrong and you are right? Do you have a religious worldview that doesn’t allow climate change or something? I know plenty of fellow-Christians that somehow feel their faith is challenged by climate change… (no idea why, but there it is).

  13. mmgwisbs says:

    Hi David,

    I think the point you are trying to make is about Radiative Forcing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing. Please note: The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

    To complicate matters further is the effect of clouds and humidity, high clouds tend to warm the planet and low clouds tend to cool it. So what is the net effect? Science doesn’t know, yet the models assume clouds are net warming. This is important as the feedback from clouds and humidity makes up more than half of CO2’s alleged effect.

    To cap it off Science doesn’t really understand the Energy Budget http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/04/16/16climatewire-the-difficulty-of-balancing-earths-energy-bu-62508.html
    – which is a travesty 🙂

    The latest cutting edge science does not prove that CO2 is causing Global Warming – please prove me wrong by directing me to a peer reviewed study that states otherwise. The Climate changes and Global Warming is happening but without proof I cannot accept that CO2 is driving it – if I did then that would be act of “faith”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

    PS They just had a segment on the news whereby the solution to the Greatest Moral Dilemma of our times has been shelved till 2013. Bottoms up!

    • eclipsenow says:

      I agree that the cloud cover issue is interesting, but I don’t think they are hoping for miracles from the low clouds. We shall see.

      But please don’t ask me to quote any one study that proves Co2 is driving it, as even the American Petroleum society has withdrawn it’s former objections to climate change. They are not ‘neutral’ on climate change, not hostile to it. See 2.3 below for more on that story.

      That means there is no scientific academy on the planet that actually DENIES Co2 causes climate change, they’re all so convinced by the physics. As you will see, most reputable scientific academies on the planet agree that Co2 causes global warming. It’s not that hard, and as the article I linked to above, has been known about since 1827.

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

      * 1 Synthesis reports
      o 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
      o 1.2 U.S. Global Change Research Program
      o 1.3 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
      * 2 Statements by organizations
      o 2.1 Statements by concurring organizations
      + 2.1.1 Academies of Science
      # 2.1.1.1 Joint science academies’ statements
      # 2.1.1.2 InterAcademy Council
      # 2.1.1.3 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
      # 2.1.1.4 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
      # 2.1.1.5 Network of African Science Academies
      # 2.1.1.6 Royal Society of New Zealand
      # 2.1.1.7 Polish Academy of Sciences
      # 2.1.1.8 National Research Council (US)
      + 2.1.2 General science
      # 2.1.2.1 American Association for the Advancement of Science
      # 2.1.2.2 American Chemical Society
      # 2.1.2.3 American Institute of Physics
      # 2.1.2.4 American Physical Society
      # 2.1.2.5 Australian Institute of Physics
      # 2.1.2.6 European Physical Society
      # 2.1.2.7 European Science Foundation
      # 2.1.2.8 Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
      + 2.1.3 Earth sciences
      # 2.1.3.1 American Geophysical Union
      # 2.1.3.2 European Federation of Geologists
      # 2.1.3.3 European Geosciences Union
      # 2.1.3.4 Geological Society of America
      # 2.1.3.5 Geological Society of Australia
      # 2.1.3.6 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      # 2.1.3.7 National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      + 2.1.4 Meteorology and oceanography
      # 2.1.4.1 American Meteorological Society
      # 2.1.4.2 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      # 2.1.4.3 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      # 2.1.4.4 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      # 2.1.4.5 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
      # 2.1.4.6 World Meteorological Organization
      + 2.1.5 Paleoclimatology
      # 2.1.5.1 American Quaternary Association
      # 2.1.5.2 International Union for Quaternary Research
      + 2.1.6 Biology and life sciences
      # 2.1.6.1 American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
      # 2.1.6.2 American Institute of Biological Sciences
      # 2.1.6.3 American Society for Microbiology
      # 2.1.6.4 Australian Coral Reef Society
      # 2.1.6.5 Institute of Biology (UK)
      # 2.1.6.6 Society of American Foresters
      # 2.1.6.7 The Wildlife Society (international)
      + 2.1.7 Human health
      # 2.1.7.1 American Academy of Pediatrics
      # 2.1.7.2 American College of Preventive Medicine
      # 2.1.7.3 American Medical Association
      # 2.1.7.4 American Public Health Association
      # 2.1.7.5 Australian Medical Association
      # 2.1.7.6 World Federation of Public Health Associations
      # 2.1.7.7 World Health Organization
      + 2.1.8 Miscellaneous
      # 2.1.8.1 American Astronomical Society
      # 2.1.8.2 American Statistical Association
      # 2.1.8.3 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
      # 2.1.8.4 International Association for Great Lakes Research
      # 2.1.8.5 Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
      o 2.2 Non-committal statements
      + 2.2.1 American Association of Petroleum Geologists
      + 2.2.2 American Association of State Climatologists
      + 2.2.3 American Geological Institute
      + 2.2.4 American Institute of Professional Geologists
      + 2.2.5 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
      o 2.3 Statements by dissenting organizations
      * 3 Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
      o 3.1 Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
      o 3.2 Bray and von Storch, 2008
      o 3.3 STATS, 2007
      o 3.4 Oreskes, 2004
      o 3.5 Bray and von Storch, 2003
      o 3.6 Survey of U.S. state climatologists, 1997
      o 3.7 Bray and von Storch, 1996
      o 3.8 Older surveys of scientists
      * 4 Scientific consensus
      * 5 See also
      * 6 References

  14. mmgwisbs says:

    The article you linked to was about the greenhouse effect and the last paragraph is worth a read:

    As one last emphasis, the greenhouse effect is not the same thing as global warming. If we are specifically talking about human-induced global warming, than that refers to the enhanced greenhouse effect (along with other factors like deforestation and other land use changes). The greenhouse effect itself is naturally occurring, and is a necessary condition to keep the surface temperatures warm enough for life. Global Warming specifically refers to the *change in* conditions from pre-industrial time to today.

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/physics-of-the-greenhouse-effect-pt-1/

    It is important to note that proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming. What we are essentially debating is a theory – that being the theory of AGW.

    Scientific Opinion link

    Re-read the statements and take note of the language that is used – words like likely, most, likely mostly – which is essentially the same language used in the IPCC reports (and the basis of GW scientific consensus). Remember the IPCC said “likely” the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Likely, likely mostly and even highly likely are neither absolutes nor proofs.

    It gets better in this IPCC summary:

    The Policymakers Summary of the WGI FAR gave a broad overview of climate change science and its Executive Summary separated key findings into areas of varying levels of confidence ranging from ‘certainty’ to providing an expert ‘judgment’. Much of the summary is not quantitative (e.g., the radiative forcing bar charts do not appear in the summary). Similarly, scientific uncertainty is hardly mentioned; when ranges are given, as in the projected temperature increases of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade, no probability or likelihood is assigned to explain the range (see Chapter 10). In discussion of the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration, the combined subjective and objective criteria are explained: the range of model results was 1.9°C to 5.2°C; most were close to 4.0°C; but the newer model results were lower; and hence the best estimate was 2.5°C with a range of 1.5°C to 4.5°C. The likelihood of the value being within this range was not defined. However, the importance of identifying those areas where climate scientists had high confidence was recognised in the Policymakers Summary.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html

    Doesn’t really sound like a consensus does it.

    • eclipsenow says:

      Re-read the statements and take note of the language that is used – words like likely, most, likely mostly – which is essentially the same language used in the IPCC reports (and the basis of GW scientific consensus). Remember the IPCC said “likely” the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Likely, likely mostly and even highly likely are neither absolutes nor proofs.

      No, that won’t do. That’s a very slippery and dishonest argument, even for a Denialist such as yourself. What’s the reason the IPCC projections for glaciers melting by 2035 are now being sneered at? Huh? Want to tell me? Because the IPCC managed process accidentally allowed some non-peer reviewed ‘opinions’ into their report. In other words it wasn’t science.

      Now you want to try and equate the Himalayan glaciers with the rest of the IPCC report, which entails the many thoroughly and repeatedly peer reviewed reports submitted on man-made climate change? That’s equivalent to sneering at every scientific academy that has bothered to do the physics and the math of Co2 inputs into our atmosphere, and calling them all rubbish. As in, every scientific academy on earth.

      And if you want ‘absolute proof’ you’ve just left science and embarked on some kind of weird philosophical quest, because science doesn’t use ‘absolute proof’ but probabilities, theories, ‘enough evidence to go on for now’. This is not just in climate but almost everything. Almost any theory we have now could one day be expanded on and overturned by the LHC. But does that mean we allow lead poisoning to continue, because one day we might find out some new way to prevent lead affecting us, even if it is in our surroundings? No! We can only go on the ‘best fit’, the knowledge we have now.

      I’m not sure what point you were trying to make about the Policymaker Summary: of course it doesn’t contain all the information, it’s a summary! (Slaps hand to forehead).

      The new consensus amongst the world’s leading climatologists is that the IPCC’s models were too slow, too conservative, too easygoing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t they still talk about limiting Co2 emissions to 450ppm? Boy, what a difference 18 months can make! The new consensus is 350ppm. We’re already over the limit. We’re already in danger. And the earth’s systems are accelerating beyond the worst projections of the IPCC.

      So yeah, the IPCC’s consensus is now out of date and irrelevant. Basically they were hamstrung by the Saudi and Western politicians that managed to debate every last stinking word of the report and slow the whole process down, gradually wearing away at the poor scientists trying to present a clear picture. Read Tim Flannery’s “Weather Makers” on attending the IPCC. It’s shameful!

      The vast majority of real peer reviewed climate science and academies that I listed above basically accept that, within the limits of human science, they are about 95% certain that we are causing this shift in climate and it is varying degrees of “bad”. There are no Milankovitch cycles due for now, no major solar actions that are affecting climate, and apart from some slight ‘wiggling’ of the temperatures due to natural forcings from the oceanic cycles, the overall temperature trend is 100% consistent with Co2 increasing. (Apart from a little global dimming after WW2 when we burnt such dirty coal, of course).

      So me and my household? We accept the state of the art peer-reviewed climate science, and ban hockey old conspiracy theory pushing anti-science Denialistic propaganda, because that’s all it is. Out there in the same league as “The aliens at my homework” and “Nessie is my best friend”. Happy dreaming!

  15. mmgwisbs says:

    We’re already in danger. And the earth’s systems are accelerating beyond the worst projections of the IPCC….

    What are you taking about here? What is really scaring you? What do you believe the worst case scenario is?

    “the range of model results was 1.9°C to 5.2°C; most were close to 4.0°C; but the newer model results were lower….

    Ohhh…runaway global warming – we are all doomed. Forget the fact that CO2 follows temperature and the earth has been a lot warmer in the past and guess what? Humans are still here!

    Maybe this will help you sleep better
    http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/pages/view.asp?page=29944
    Dino made it to Svalbard!

    • eclipsenow says:

      http://www.350.org/
      The new consensus is that we’re already over the safe climate limits. There’s no ‘decade at current rates’, we’re already there! Co2 has never been this high, well, not in the history of our species on this planet. Dinosaurs were nicely adapted to hotter temperatures, even if the vast majority of the world’s oceans were annoxic at that stage. (See ABC’s “Crude” part 3). And dinosaurs didn’t have agriculture to run, vast suburban sprawl systems to water, feed, house, supply with all ecosystem services, etc.

      If you’re seriously asking what I’m concerned about, it is that Al Gore got “An Inconvenient truth” wrong because we’re almost there already, and that (apart from the false glaciers alert) practically everything in that movie is happening sooner than the IPCC modelled.

      Forget the fact that CO2 follows temperature

      That’s a half truth, which makes it a very deceptive lie. It’s number 10 in the top 28 myths that New Scientist warns us Denialists will use.

      You’ve been warned not to quote from the 28 myths, I’d ask you not to quote from this list of lies again unless you have some very good, peer reviewed reason to do so.

      The Milankovitch cycles or ‘earth’s wobbles’ changed the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at the correct angles, and caused ice ages or warming. So in those circumstances, even the climatologists all admit that SURE the temperature changed first, and then the Co2 followed (and MAGNIFIED) the effects.

      Where do you get the information that humanity has seen warmer temperatures? It’s just not true.

      Oh, and how did you go answering the charge that you’ve basically decided to defy all the peer-reviewed scientific academies on earth by denying that our Co2 contributions are gradually but incrementally tipping the climate scales? You never got back to us on that one did you?

  16. mmgwisbs says:

    From: http://www.350.org/understanding-350#3

    “No……we’re starting to see signs of real trouble: melting ice caps, rapidly spreading drought.”

    Really….
    The Ice Cap Is Growing
    NSW drought figures hit nine-year low

    Science doesn’t actually know if 450 ppm and 2 degrees are the same thing, and no one knows how much change they would produce. Again, these were guesses for the point at which catastrophic damage would begin—they were more plausible, but still not based on actual experience.

    We don’t really know…but let’s panic anyway !

    “CO2 has never been this high (in human history)”

    Some dispute this http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

    Criticism has been made of the IPCC use of ice core data to determine pre 1957 levels and the fact they have all but discounted direct measurements made since 1800.

    Was the climate really that bad back in the times of dinosaurs? Would mankind flourish more under that kind of a climate or the one we have?

    “An Inconvenient truth”….. practically everything in that movie is happening sooner than the IPCC modelled.”

    One British Court would beg to differ http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2633838.ece

    Historically the data shows that CO2 lags and even New Scientist supports that claim

    “What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor – most probably orbital changes – caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2,”

    “Most likely Milankovitch cycles but it could be some “factor”….could even be the same “factor” that is driving Global Warming today !

    “Where do you get the information that humanity has seen warmer temperatures? It’s just not true”

    Sorry, but it is!
    Here are a “few” peer reviewed studies for you:
    Asian Studies
    European Studies
    Australian NZ Studies
    North American Studies
    Ocean Studies
    South American Studies

    The majority of these researchers came to the conclusion that the MWP was warmer than today. What evidence do you have that they are wrong? Michael Mann’s hockey stick! Even the IPCC is backing away from it.

    “The National Academy of Science Report from 2006 – all of which have helped to clarify that the hockey-stick methodologies lead indeed to questionable historical reconstructions. The 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC now presents a whole range of historical reconstructions instead of favoring prematurely just one hypothesis as reliable.”

    http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html

    A huge problem for the alarmists is that if the MWP was up to 2C than today then there would be cause for alarm over the current warming trend. Oh, and the predictions of climate doom would be unfounded.

    • eclipsenow says:

      ICE CAP

      The Ice Cap Is Growing

      I’ve told you before about the requirement to actually bother sourcing outrageous claims, with reliable peer-reviewed science. This statement, without a peer-reviewed source, is why people on BNC are calling you a troll Gordon. I am close to banning you from commenting on my blog. The ice cap ‘grows’ each year as winter grows in, but this is only ‘annual’ ice. The really think multi-year ice is decreasing in size, and soon we’ll have an ice free Arctic, during summer! For crying out loud, PLEASE learn the difference between climate phenomenon and seasonal phenomenon. Yes the ice cap regrows each year, and I don’t think I’ve ever read a climatologist that says the Arctic won’t freeze over during winter! But it is the enormous feedbacks implicit in the albedo changes of the northern seas in Summer that represent the real threats, especially to the Greenland ice sheet.

      Co2 higher in past?
      So you think Co2 has been higher than today in recent history, according to Ernst Beck at your link of http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

      So what do you make of the peer-reviewed literature that completely refutes this based on ice core proxies, oh, and on your EG Beck as being a bit of a lying moron?

      The most impressive record documenting the human role in atmospheric CO2 concentrations was recently published in the AR4 SPM showing the comparably minor variations of CO2 during the Holocene (as measured in various ice cores) followed by the abrupt increase of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the start of industrialisation in the 19th century (figure).

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

      Recently an article by E-G. Beck has been wafting through the Internet and has now been ‘published’ by Energy and Environment which challenges all these findings or, more precisely, ignores the last 50 years of carbon cycle research [Curiously, this journal always seems happy to ennoble even the strangest idea with the scientific label: “peer reviewed”]. Beck’s approach is very simple: He decided from the beginning that Keeling and Callendar obviously are ideological fanatics and that finally all chemical measurements in the 19th and early 20th century actually were fine. Great news of course!

      So what does the new CO2 “reconstruction” look like? For example, within 15 years CO2 levels rose from about 290ppm (1925) to about 470ppm (1942). Worse, within only 10 years these huge CO2 levels were absorbed again and came back to boring mainstream values of about 300ppm.

      The list of arguments against such variability in the carbon cycle is too long even for a post on RC but here are a few of the main ones:

      * The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon per year which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year (except that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional complications since such CO2 levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the real CO2 source must even be larger).
      * Such huge biospheric fluxes would leave an enormous 13C signal in the atmosphere. Nothing remotely like that is observed in tree ring cellulose data.
      * Beck makes an association of some of the alleged huge CO2 peaks with volcanic eruptions. The Mauna Loa CO2 record started by Charles Keeling 1955 (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf ) however doesn’t show much variability associated with the big eruptions of El Chichon, Agung or Pinatubo. (Readers should know however that on much longer, geologic, timescales, CO2 levels are heavily influenced by volcanic and tectonic activity, but that is not important on the interannual (or even centennial) timescale).
      * The paper suggests that the CO2 peak in the 1940 is forced by the first temperature rise in the 20th century. That would make 150ppm due to a temperature shift of 0.4°C. What happened then with the next rise from the 1970s to today? The observed about 0.5°C rise corresponded to “only” 70ppm always assuming that fossil fuel combustion does not leave any remains in the atmosphere…. 😉
      * And most importantly, we know from ice core analysis the CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial to modern times. The results of three different Antarctic cores broadly confirm the picture of an accelerating rise of CO2 above levels of natural variability over the last 650.000 years.

      And YOU are the one ‘wafting it’ around the internet. Get off my blog, you’re just an internet troll and I have more important things to do.

  17. eclipsenow says:

    Oh, and I was so disgusted with your other Denialist references I forgot to debunk the retarded, lying, dishonest ‘source’ you linked to in your vain attempt to prove the MWP warmer than today.

    You quoted Von Storch. Why? Because it fits in with your anti-AGW paradigm, not because it was actually good science!

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/a-correction-with-repercussions/

    Today, Science published an important comment pointing out that there were serious errors in a climate research article that it published in October 2004. The article concerned (Von Storch et al. 2004) was no ordinary paper: it has gone through a most unusual career. Not only did it make many newspaper headlines [New Research Questions Uniqueness of Recent Warming, Past Climate Change Questioned etc.] when it first appeared, it also was raised in the US Senate as a reason for the US not to join the global climate protection efforts. It furthermore formed a part of the basis for the highly controversial enquiry by a Congressional committee into the work of scientists, which elicited sharp protests last year by the AAAS, the National Academy, the EGU and other organisations. It now turns out that the main results of the paper were simply wrong.

    Von Storch et al. claimed to have tested the climate reconstruction method of Mann et al. (1998) in model simulations, and found it performed very poorly. Now, Eugene Wahl, David Ritson and Caspar Amman show that the main reason for the alleged poor performance is that Von Storch et al. implemented the method incorrectly. What Von Storch et al. did, without mentioning it in their paper, was to remove the trend before calibrating the method against observational data – a step that severely degrades the performance of Climate Field Reconstruction (CFR) methods such as the Mann et al. method (unfortunately this erroneous procedure has already been propagated in a paper by Burger and Cubasch (GRL, 2005) where the authors refer to a personal communication with Von Storch to justify the use of the procedure). Another more recent analysis has shown that CFR methods perform well when used correctly. (See our addendum for a less technical description of what this is all about).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s