Brazil heat wave kills 32 elderly people

[RandomGuy]

By MARCO SIBAJA (AP) – 5 days ago

BRASILIA, Brazil — Thirty-two elderly people died in a southeastern Brazilian city this week because of a heat wave that has pushed temperatures to unseasonably high levels, a health official said Wednesday.

All of the fatalities in the coastal city of Santos near Sao Paulo involved people between 60 and 90 years old with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes or hypertension, according to the health ministry in Santos.

The first deaths were registered Monday, when the temperature in Santos reached 39 degrees Celsius (102 Fahrenheit). Temperatures were well above 30 degrees (86 F) in the following days.

Luiz Fernando Gomes da Silva, Santos' health ministry's coordinator for the elderly, is urging people to drink a lot of liquids amid the heat of the South American summer.

Temperatures are also hitting record levels in Rio de Janeiro, where the city's five-day Carnival bash begins Friday.

The heat wave follows more than a month of torrential rains across southeastern Brazil that killed more than 70 people — most victims of mudslides that swept away ramshackle homes built on hillsides.

[ElNono]

Wait... it's hot in the summer in Brazil?

Who would have thought?

[RandomGuy]

Wait... it's hot in the summer in Brazil?

Who would have thought?

But, but, it is snowing up here. How can this be?

It must be cold everywhere, right?

[ElNono]

But, but, it is snowing up here. How can this be?
It must be cold everywhere, right?

It's not that complicated, really...

it's winter here, it's summer there...

[RandomGuy]

It's not that complicated, really...

it's winter here, it's summer there...

But, the fact that snow exists at all must be a complete repudiation of that "global warming" thing we keep hearin' about from them pesky scientist types.

[RandomGuy]

Next thing you know, the sun will go away and the world will go dark. Pshaw. It's light outside now, so that just puts the whole "night" myth to rest. Pfft.

[ElNono]

What global warming?

I mean, if you're tying to point out that it's really hot in the summer in Brazil as some kind of 'unusual' or 'non-historical' event, you have failed miserably...

[ElNono]

I would actually take you a little more seriously if you would show me a pattern of higher historical temperatures in Brazil during winter...

[ElNono]

Also, how does these temperatures compare historically? I mean, 39 degrees celsius is pretty common for January and February over there...

[smeagol]

It's been fucking hot in Argentina too . . .

[I. Hustle]

First of all are these guys even all alive? If they are then where did they get the money to all go to Brazil? They haven't had a hit in decades.
Secondly, aren't they elderly as well? Why would they kill old people when they are old?
http://www.heatwave72.com/heatwave_bio_pic.jpg

[balli]

lol. It's not often that opening the political forum makes my morning. Well done RG.

[RandomGuy]

What global warming?

I mean, if you're tying to point out that it's really hot in the summer in Brazil as some kind of 'unusual' or 'non-historical' event, you have failed miserably...

No actually.

My point was to point out how silly a lot of global climate change deniers are when they try to use isolated events of cold weather to somehow "disprove" the whole notion of human-caused climate change, as DarrinS does on a regular basis.

It is a perfect example of a strawman logical fallacy. Isolated heat waves no more prove global climate change than isolated snow storms disprove it.

[DarrinS]

No actually.

My point was to point out how silly a lot of global climate change deniers are when they try to use isolated events of cold weather to somehow "disprove" the whole notion of human-caused climate change, as DarrinS does on a regular basis.




No, just quid pro quo. AGW advocates use isolated events to "prove" AGW.

Example:

kIYG0Rdnh5Y


See, you can't have it both ways.






It is a perfect example of a strawman logical fallacy. Isolated heat waves no more prove global climate change than isolated snow storms disprove it.




Yes. You are correct.

So, are you saying AGW is not a settled science?

You see, I still believe climate change should be studied. I just don't think we fully understand all of the factors that affect global climate. I just want the IPCC to be disbanded and for some independent, NON-governmental body to take up the study. It is FAR too politicized.

[ElNono]

No actually.

My point was to point out how silly a lot of global climate change deniers are when they try to use isolated events of cold weather to somehow "disprove" the whole notion of human-caused climate change, as DarrinS does on a regular basis.

It is a perfect example of a strawman logical fallacy. Isolated heat waves no more prove global climate change than isolated snow storms disprove it.

You mean you're lowering yourself to their standards to 'raise the bar' on the discussion? Sounds pretty weak to me.

[RandomGuy]

You mean you're lowering yourself to their standards to 'raise the bar' on the discussion? Sounds pretty weak to me.

It is weak. That is the point.

[mogrovejo]

Warmers...

[George Gervin's Afro]

I find it intellectually dishonest to use one weather pattern to deny global warming exists. I leave that to armchair climatologists/talk radio crowd. RG I doubt they get what you are proving.

[ElNono]

It is weak. That is the point.

Thanks for nothing... I guess...

[RandomGuy]

You see, I still believe climate change should be studied. I just don't think we fully understand all of the factors that affect global climate. I just want the IPCC to be disbanded and for some independent, NON-governmental body to take up the study. It is FAR too politicized.

Indeed we don't understand all of the factors.

Which is one of the main reasons why we should seriously consider not tripling the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As for the IPCC being politicized:

I doubt you would find any body studying this acceptable. You seem to have taken all the evidence supporting this and lumped it in to "they just say that because it is in their interest to say that", a weak form of ad hominem, and little better than the cries of "government shill" that one hears from the 9-11 nutters. If this is unfair, then give me some bit of evidence supporting the man-caused climate change that you think appears valid.

As I have said before, there is enough data out there to show something is happening. It is entirely reasonable to make a good guess as to the causes, and take some steps to mitigate them before it is too late.

Not only is it reasonable, but it would highly likely be good for our economy in the long-term to do so.

[RandomGuy]

Thanks for nothing... I guess...

Actually, I got Darrin to admit that was precisely what *he* was doing.

That is something.

Maybe now we can move beyond something everybody knows really doesn't prove anything.

[RandomGuy]

My point was to point out how silly a lot of global climate change deniers are when they try to use isolated events of cold weather to somehow "disprove" the whole notion of human-caused climate change, as DarrinS does on a regular basis.


No,[it's not silly] just quid pro quo. AGW advocates use isolated events to "prove" AGW.
[so I am going to do it here too]

I must strongly disagree with you here.

It is silly when either side does it.

So why do you keep doing it?

[DarrinS]

Indeed we don't understand all of the factors.


If we don't, then it's not "settled", right?





As for the IPCC being politicized:

I doubt you would find any body studying this acceptable. You seem to have taken all the evidence supporting this and lumped it in to "they just say that because it is in their interest to say that", a weak form of ad hominem, and little better than the cries of "government shill" that one hears from the 9-11 nutters. If this is unfair, then give me some bit of evidence supporting the man-caused climate change that you think appears valid.



It's very insulting to equate skeptics to 9-11 nutters. You must think a lot of very famous scientists, including Nobel Prize winners (in physics -- not peace), are crazer flat-Earth nutters too.

I actually used to believe in AGW until I saw Inconvenient Truth. People don't realize that the apocalyptic flood animations in that horror flick are 12 times worse than the IPCC's worst case scenarios.

Look, the only evidence I can give is anecdotal. Retreating glaciers, a stranded polar bear on a piece of ice, etc. I don't know of any evidence that links the warming to CO2. If you have some, please share. CO2 has gone up consistently and linearly since 1998 and yet the global avg temps are flat.





As I have said before, there is enough data out there to show something is happening. It is entirely reasonable to make a good guess as to the causes, and take some steps to mitigate them before it is too late.




So, you want to re-engineer world economies based on a guess? Not good enough.







Not only is it reasonable, but it would highly likely be good for our economy in the long-term to do so.




Perhaps, but potentially disasterous in the short-term. By short, I mean 10-20 years, maybe longer.

[DarrinS]

By the way, RG, I'm all for doing things to mitigate any negative affects people are having on the climate, so long as it's not a suicide pact.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, how does these temperatures compare historically? I mean, 39 degrees celsius is pretty common for January and February over there...
I was thinking the same thing, but I haven't been there. I know when I lived in The Dalles, OR, we had one summer that hit 122 F (50 C), and we are north of 45 degrees latitude, Not near the equator.

Oh... that was also in the 70's, during the global cooling scare!

[SAGambler]

What global warming?

I mean, if you're tying to point out that it's really hot in the summer in Brazil as some kind of 'unusual' or 'non-historical' event, you have failed miserably...

I don't see how a few days of temps between 86 - 102 can even be considered as "really hot". Summer here, that is below typical.

[SnakeBoy]

Maybe now we can move beyond something everybody knows really doesn't prove anything.

Probably not, it's still winter.

It is nice to see you admit AGW is nothing more than an unproven theory though.

[RandomGuy]

By the way, RG, I'm all for doing things to mitigate any negative affects people are having on the climate, so long as it's not a suicide pact.

Yes, CO2 and other gasses having a marked effect on overall climate is a guess.

That guess though represents an overall scientific consensus that something is happening and that our actions are most likely having an affect that will continue to accelerate. Which is enough to do some reasonable steps to mitigating the problem.

We have already determined that there is little support to the thesis that doing something to limit greenhouse gases will completely tank the economy, and will, arguably, actuallyl improve our economy over the long term.

If there is some reasonable basis for action, and that action is actually good for us in the long term, why not act?

[Phenomanul]

There is one distinction ACC proponents are trying to ignore... the entire northern hemisphere has been on average much cooler this year than years prior.

That's more extensive than just an isolated event here or there.

Still... the link between CO2 concentrations as a cause for any of these changes will be highly disputed... particularly because the oceans store >98.0% of earth's CO2, and sea temperatures (not air temperatures) are the ones that determine how much of it can be released (desorbed) into the atmosphere (not the other way around) or absorbed into the sea.

IMO so long as anthropomorphic climate change proponents continue to belittle the sun's influence on these matters, as subservient to CO2 concentrations... they will continue to lose the battle.

[RandomGuy]

Probably not, it's still winter.

It is nice to see you admit AGW is nothing more than an unproven theory though.

This isn't like some theory about how stars form being unproven.

The problem is that, in the worst case scenario, if we wait until it is "proven" we will have global capital destruction on an unprecedented scale.

[Phenomanul]

This isn't like some theory about how stars form being unproven.

The problem is that, in the worst case scenario, if we wait until it is "proven" we will have global capital destruction on an unprecedented scale.

Actually a bigger global problem will be the availability of resources once our global population balloons past 20... 30... 40... and 50 billion people...

Some estimates have that occurring by the year 2050.

[RandomGuy]

It's very insulting to equate skeptics to 9-11 nutters. You must think a lot of very famous scientists, including Nobel Prize winners (in physics -- not peace), are crazer flat-Earth nutters too.

Then quit acting like them. Read the IPCC reports. If the only evidence you have is anecdotal, then move beyond it.

The problem with 9-11 nutters is that they almost never read or watch things that they might disagree with, and do nothing but watch things that give in to their confirmation bias.

I have, at some length, spent a lot of time reading through the "scientific" papers and material posted by Wild Cobra. I put that in quotes, because a lot of I saw was quite obviously not peer-reviewed science.


Perhaps, but [limiting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is]potentially disasterous in the short-term. By short, I mean 10-20 years, maybe longer.

You have less proof of that than the IPCC does of its worst case scenarios.

Again, we have discussed this previously.

The ONLY support for that statement was a 15 year old economic paper using some rather tenuous assumptions that I was able to deconstruct pretty quickly.

On the contrary, limiting CO2 emissions decreases the amount of exposure our economy will have to the inevitable run-ups in the prices of oil and other hydrocarbon fuels in the coming 20 years. Such run-ups will cause us no end of trade deficits, something we can ill afford.

Limiting CO2 emissions will, arguably even in the 10-20 year time period benefit the economy.

[RandomGuy]

Actually a bigger global problem will be the availability of resources once our global population balloons past 20... 30... 40... and 50 billion people...

Some estimates have that occurring by the year 2050.

Please show "some estimate" that puts the global population at 50Bn in 2050.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, CO2 and other gasses having a marked effect on overall climate is a guess.

That guess though represents an overall scientific consensus that something is happening and that our actions are most likely having an affect that will continue to accelerate. Which is enough to do some reasonable steps to mitigating the problem.

We have already determined that there is little support to the thesis that doing something to limit greenhouse gases will completely tank the economy, and will, arguably, actuallyl improve our economy over the long term.

If there is some reasonable basis for action, and that action is actually good for us in the long term, why not act?

It seems to me that you need to establish the costs of inaction vs. action before you can quantify the action as "good" or "bad" or just "meh".

[RandomGuy]

There is one distinction ACC proponents are trying to ignore... the entire northern hemisphere has been on average much cooler this year than years prior.

That's more extensive than just an isolated event here or there.

Still... the link between CO2 concentrations as a cause for any of these changes will be highly disputed... particularly because the oceans store >98.0% of earth's CO2, and sea temperatures (not air temperatures) are the ones that determine how much of it can be released (desorbed) into the atmosphere (not the other way around) or absorbed into the sea.

IMO so long as anthropomorphic climate change proponents continue to belittle the sun's influence on these matters, as subservient to CO2 concentrations... they will continue to lose the battle.

Where to start... climate change is climate change. The big problem is that we dont' know where the "tipping points" are, where you start getting self-sustaining, accelerating cycles.

We have no real solid grasp as to how much CO2 is sequestered by the oceans. We are just beginning to understand the overall CO2 cycle, it is a bit more complex than just calculating CO2 absorbtion of a glass of water and then extrapolating that for an entire ocean.

I would guess that you have no idea what effects of the sun the IPCC attributes to the changes taking place, because you have not read the IPCC reports, and have instead probably taken others' word as to the degree climate scientists attribute changes in solar output to the changes we see.

The reports I have seen have fully acknowledged that the sun has a great deal of influence on our climate.

[RandomGuy]

It seems to me that you need to establish the costs of inaction vs. action before you can quantify the action as "good" or "bad" or just "meh".

We can do something based on probabilities and ambiguous information.

watch the video in the first post here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916

I can show how we will be faced with rather fast run-ups in oil and gas prices over the next 40 years. The mistaken assumption that people who say "we will destroy our economy if we act to limit CO2 emissions" make is to assume that CO2 producing fuels will continue to be cheap, as they have historically.

They won't.

That fact right there is something I am 99% certain of.

We can either act now to make adjustments while energy is cheaper than it will be in the future, or wait until things get REALLY expensive to get off our collective duffs.

[TeyshaBlue]

We can do something based on probabilities and ambiguous information.

watch the video in the first post here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916

I can show how we will be faced with rather fast run-ups in oil and gas prices over the next 40 years. The mistaken assumption that people who say "we will destroy our economy if we act to limit CO2 emissions" make is to assume that CO2 producing fuels will continue to be cheap, as they have historically.

They won't.

That fact right there is something I am 99% certain of.

We can either act now to make adjustments while energy is cheaper than it will be in the future, or wait until things get REALLY expensive to get off our collective duffs.

I can't argue the logic of fossil fuel volatility and it's inevitable demise as a primary fuel source. But, I've always viewed it as an entirely different issue than AGW reduction actions.
It certainly benefits by lowering CO2 emissions...no doubt about it and it's an interesting synergy between AGW and Peak Oil proponents that I've not considered.
That being said, adjustments can be made. It's what adjustments that are the kicker and that's when the issues of cost become a bit more germane.

[ElNono]

We can do something based on probabilities and ambiguous information.

watch the video in the first post here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916

I can show how we will be faced with rather fast run-ups in oil and gas prices over the next 40 years. The mistaken assumption that people who say "we will destroy our economy if we act to limit CO2 emissions" make is to assume that CO2 producing fuels will continue to be cheap, as they have historically.

They won't.

That fact right there is something I am 99% certain of.

We can either act now to make adjustments while energy is cheaper than it will be in the future, or wait until things get REALLY expensive to get off our collective duffs.

When things get really expensive we will move to the next cheaper thing. Like electricity from Nuclear sources. It will also make research on alternative energy sources viable.

See, that will happen naturally as a process of supply/demand. Much like it happened a couple of years ago. Trying to force that right now is a waste of money, period.

Ten years ago we didn't think we could extract petroleum from so deep in the earth as we do now. That opened up new reservoirs, like in Brazil, etc.
So right now we just keep on riding the fossil train until it's not economically viable anymore, or until there's a better and cheaper energy source available.

[DarrinS]

Then quit acting like them. Read the IPCC reports.



Are you talking about the same IPCC whose reputation and credibility have taken a serious beating the past few months? The same IPCC whose reports are riddled with student dissertations and non-peer reviewed articles from such politically neutral entities as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund?


No thanks.

[Phenomanul]

Where to start... climate change is climate change. The big problem is that we dont' know where the "tipping points" are, where you start getting self-sustaining, accelerating cycles.

We have no real solid grasp as to how much CO2 is sequestered by the oceans. We are just beginning to understand the overall CO2 cycle, it is a bit more complex than just calculating CO2 absorbtion of a glass of water and then extrapolating that for an entire ocean.

I would guess that you have no idea what effects of the sun the IPCC attributes to the changes taking place, because you have not read the IPCC reports, and have instead probably taken others' word as to the degree climate scientists attribute changes in solar output to the changes we see.

The reports I have seen have fully acknowledged that the sun has a great deal of influence on our climate.

And yet we've overpowered the sun's influence? Not likely.

Climate change is climate change... agreed. But climate change isn't necessarily anthropomorphic climate change... which is exactly what the IPCC has been asserting for years.

LOL @ your acussation that somehow I'm condoning the use of 'glasses of [plain] water' for conducting CO2 studies instead of sea water. Especially because sea water is soooooo rare that scientists don't have any access to it. :rolleyes IF your beef was with extrapolation... maybe you should turn that microscope back at the IPCC.

[Phenomanul]

Please show "some estimate" that puts the global population at 50Bn in 2050.

you assumed it was in reference to the last figure. I didn't state it that way.

Over 20 billion... by 2050. That's double our current population. So the question remains... where are we going to find twice the quantity of resources to satisfy the demands of that population? The poverty faction will grow... and stir up global politics past a tipping point... That tipping point worries me more than the alleged one for ACC.

[RandomGuy]

When things get really expensive we will move to the next cheaper thing. Like electricity from Nuclear sources.

Nuclear energy is not the next cheapest form of energy, actually. It is extremely expensive, and requires vast amounts of subisdies. No nuclear reactor has ever been built without government subsidies, and no nuclear reactor in the US has ever come in under 200% of it's original estimated cost, with 400%+ cost overruns having been common.

This may not hold in the future, but NIMBY and other factors do not favor nukes as a cost effective form of energy.


It will also make research on alternative energy sources viable. See, that will happen naturally as a process of supply/demand. Much like it happened a couple of years ago. Trying to force that right now is a waste of money, period.

Yes, it will. And countries that get a step or two ahead on that regard will have some solid competitive advantages.



Ten years ago we didn't think we could extract petroleum from so deep in the earth as we do now. That opened up new reservoirs, like in Brazil, etc.
So right now we just keep on riding the fossil train until it's not economically viable anymore, or until there's a better and cheaper energy source available.

The thing is that energy and the costs of energy are wrapped up in everything we do, make, sell, buy, etc.

If we wait until energy gets hideously expensive, the overall costs of development get that much higher. It is like getting a balloon payment option written into your mortgage.

Sure, you get to ride the cheap low interest train for a while, but the inevitable expenses in the future will make life much less pleasant.

The thing is that we know how fossil fuels will play out. they will continue to get harder to extract and less energetically efficient over time, all while demand for them grows.

Getting ready for that switch and inevitability is like planning for retirement. A bit saved now makes a big difference down the road.

[RandomGuy]

you assumed it was in reference to the last figure. I didn't state it that way.

Over 20 billion... by 2050. That's double our current population. So the question remains... where are we going to find twice the quantity of resources to satisfy the demands of that population? The poverty faction will grow... and stir up global politics past a tipping point... That tipping point worries me more than the alleged one for ACC.

Our current population is 6.7bn. Double that is only 13bn.

Current projections have the most likely stabilization of earths population at approximately 9bn around 2080.

The current negative trend of population growth in Europe, with flattening patterns in China, India, and the US account for more than half of the worlds population. Further industrialization will only hasten that trend.

Malthusian death-spirals over resources... won't happen.

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

or pick a source:

google search link (http://www.google.com/search?q=world+population+projections+2050&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)

[Wild Cobra]

IMO so long as anthropomorphic climate change proponents continue to belittle the sun's influence on these matters, as subservient to CO2 concentrations... they will continue to lose the battle.
Absolutely true.

I find any of these people who will not debate the sun's effect unworthy of debating with.

[Phenomanul]

Our current population is 6.7bn. Double that is only 13bn.

Current projections have the most likely stabilization of earths population at approximately 9bn around 2080.

The current negative trend of population growth in Europe, with flattening patterns in China, India, and the US account for more than half of the worlds population. Further industrialization will only hasten that trend.

Malthusian death-spirals over resources... won't happen.

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

or pick a source:

google search link (http://www.google.com/search?q=world+population+projections+2050&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=)


The book I was reading was written in 1999 before the 2000 census... One factor I did remember was that the ever increasing life expectancy (from advancements in medicine) would keep that curve from flattening out. That is why the Wiki graph (from UN projections) seems strange. The 9 billion number by 2080 seems rather low by that account. I guess that's the legalized abortion factor kicking in.

Edit: (just arrived home) 2150 population of 25 billion (From DK Smithsonian's "Earth").

[RandomGuy]

The book I was reading was written in 1999 before the 2000 census... One factor I did remember was that the ever increasing life expectancy (from advancements in medicine) would keep that curve from flattening out. That is why the Wiki graph (from UN projections) seems strange. The 9 billion number by 2080 seems rather low by that account. I guess that's the legalized abortion factor kicking in.

Edit: (just arrived home) 2150 population of 25 billion (From DK Smithsonian's "Earth").

Ah Dorling Kindersley Publishing. One of my favorite publishers from when I used to work in book stores. I love them and they do some wonderful kids books on a variety of subjects, rich with pictures and details.

The particular book you quoted was published in 2003, presumedly using data from a bit before that.

Since that time the UN has used a lot of new data to produce this graph (Sep 2008)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png/588px-World-Population-1800-2100.png

25bn by 2050 is more than 200% of the high-end projection.

One can play around with the data here:
http://esa.un.org/unpp/

Increased life expectency past the age of about 45 doesn't really add much, as people that age or older don't tend to reproduce much or successfully.

Stronger economic development and industrialization matter much more in bringing down the growth rate.

[RandomGuy]

I guess that's the legalized abortion factor kicking in.


Legalized abortion matters less than access to regular birth control and simple economic development according to all the data I am familiar with.

But thanks for playing the "I let my ideological biases and emotional hot buttons drive my interpretation of all data" game.

Please provide proof of the assertion that "legalized abortion" is either a main cause, or the main cause of reduced birth rates in any country.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

[RandomGuy]

You seem to have taken all the evidence supporting this and lumped it in to "they just say that because it is in their interest to say that", a weak form of ad hominem, and little better than the cries of "government shill" that one hears from the 9-11 nutters.



It's very insulting to equate skeptics [like me] to 9-11 nutters.


Then quit acting like them. Read the IPCC reports. If the only evidence you have is anecdotal, then move beyond it.


Are you talking about the same IPCC [who I dislike]?
No thanks, [I will not read their reports that outline the scientific support for their thesis]
-------------------------------------------------



I watched that whole show, and they did a lot of fair, honest experiments that debunked the a lot of the "proof" [that the moon landings were faked] that people like the OP used to claim that the "moon landing was faked". They dealt directly with a number of the primary claims made.


That's the point! It's a "show" they work for "Hollywood" they have fun doing things in their lab so sheeple tune in.
[I won't watch it]
-------------------------------------------


Dr. Philip Plait holds a doctorate in Astronomy from UVA.
He created the Bad Astronomy website to dispute public misconceptions about space science and astronomy [especially regarding the assetions made by people like Cosmored that the moon landings were faked]
http://www.badastronomy.com/pr/bio.html


Bad Astronomy is a government damage-control site. [I won't address or even read most of what they say about evidence that the moon landing were real]


I could do a bit more digging and show other places where conspiracy theorists concerning 9-11 won't read the NIST report regarding the collapse of the towers and so forth.

If it is insulting to be equated to the 9-11 nutters, man up and quit acting like them.

Read an IPCC report.

[DarrinS]

I could do a bit more digging and show other places where conspiracy theorists concerning 9-11 won't read the NIST report regarding the collapse of the towers and so forth.

If it is insulting to be equated to the 9-11 nutters, man up and quit acting like them.

Read an IPCC report.




Recent IPCC reports used the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which has been thoroughly debunked, as well as a numerous numerical errors (e.g. melting ice affect on sea level rise was off by a factor of 10!).

Given their lack of credibility, should I keep reading them?



EDIT> The better question would be, why do YOU have so much faith in the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change?

[ElNono]

Nuclear energy is not the next cheapest form of energy, actually. It is extremely expensive, and requires vast amounts of subisdies. No nuclear reactor has ever been built without government subsidies, and no nuclear reactor in the US has ever come in under 200% of it's original estimated cost, with 400%+ cost overruns having been common.

This may not hold in the future, but NIMBY and other factors do not favor nukes as a cost effective form of energy.

If you compare it to fossil fuels, sure it's not cost-effective. But if fossil fuels supply drastically gets reduced (big IF at this point), then the cost becomes bearable. In that scenario, there's going to be a cost increase no matter what you do anyways.


Yes, it will. And countries that get a step or two ahead on that regard will have some solid competitive advantages.

Having the R&D done doesn't necessarily mean it's cost-effective to implement it now. We have the R&D done. The energy market conditions will be one to determine when it's cost-effective to go that route, if ever.


The thing is that energy and the costs of energy are wrapped up in everything we do, make, sell, buy, etc.

If we wait until energy gets hideously expensive, the overall costs of development get that much higher. It is like getting a balloon payment option written into your mortgage.

Sure, you get to ride the cheap low interest train for a while, but the inevitable expenses in the future will make life much less pleasant.

The thing is that we know how fossil fuels will play out. they will continue to get harder to extract and less energetically efficient over time, all while demand for them grows.

Getting ready for that switch and inevitability is like planning for retirement. A bit saved now makes a big difference down the road.

I disagree that we know how it will play out. We don't even know if fossil fuels are a limited supply. Fact is, we keep on finding brand new huge deposits all the time. Plus it's hilarious that you think that there's going to be a cutoff point. Like, "Next Tuesday we're running out of oil".... We're going to see what the reserves are, what the consumption is, what new fields are found or exploited, and prices will vary accordingly. And as prices fluctuate, the viability of alternative energy will increase or decrease.
A bunch of people jumped into the alternative energy bandwagon a couple of years ago when the gas was at $4/gallon. Guys like the Tesla motors (which I loved what they did, BTW). But right now they're struggling because their product is simply not cost-efective, period.

[DarrinS]

Guys like the Tesla motors (which I loved what they did, BTW). But right now they're struggling because their product is simply not cost-efective, period.



What do you mean? You don't have $100,000 in your bank account for a green vehicle?


You could always least a Honda Clarity for $600/month, but you have to live in Torrance, Santa Monica, or Irvine areas of CA.

[ElNono]

What do you mean? You don't have $100,000 in your bank account for a green vehicle?
You could always least a Honda Clarity for $600/month, but you have to live in Torrance, Santa Monica, or Irvine areas of CA.

I think they did a great job on the R&D... and if they could build it in volumes like other car manufacturers, you could chop the price in half, easily.
But the infrastructure is not there. They still need to do more work on the range (improved battery tech). And obviously, the market is simply not interested yet.

But it was a nice glimpse on what the market forces could lead to if fossil fuel is ever on the way out.

[RandomGuy]

Recent IPCC reports used the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which has been thoroughly debunked, as well as a numerous numerical errors (e.g. melting ice affect on sea level rise was off by a factor of 10!).

Given their lack of credibility, should I keep reading them?



EDIT> The better question would be, why do YOU have so much faith in the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change?

Please show me where "recent IPCC reports used the infamous "hockey stick" graph".

How can you know what is in the reports, if you don't read them in the first place?

Just like a 9-11 Truther, I would hazard you read somethign somewhere on a website that you are predisposed to agree with without seeing for yourself.

If you can't be bothered to read the IPCC reports, you take your place in line for a tin foil hat with mouse, cosmored, and Alex Jones.

[RandomGuy]

the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which has been thoroughly debunked

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

The studies that have been done on the data, much at the behest of people who believe as you do have generally upheld the "hockey stick"s implications.

My reading of this says that "thoroughly debunked" is something of a stretch.

Yet another thing you have in common with the 9-11 nutters:

You declare victory conclusively based on little more than your own predispositions on which side in a scientific debate you want to believe in.

[RandomGuy]

If you compare it to fossil fuels, sure it's not cost-effective. But if fossil fuels supply drastically gets reduced (big IF at this point), then the cost becomes bearable. In that scenario, there's going to be a cost increase no matter what you do anyways.

That is one of the main problems with things like tar sands. This is the concept of "vanishing horizons". The profitability analysis of things like this posits revenues based on certain oil prices, but fails to account how those prices will affect costs.


Having the R&D done doesn't necessarily mean it's cost-effective to implement it now. We have the R&D done. The energy market conditions will be one to determine when it's cost-effective to go that route, if ever.

Actually the implication is that it is much more cost-effective to do it now, as energy is cheaper, relative to a dollar of GDP.

If you wait until oil plays out to start on this, the costs of switching over get commensurately and proportionally higher.

We will see a period of declining supply for oil over the coming decades:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/world-oil-prod-proj.gif

Overall demand will only increase in that time for a variety of factors. Read up on the Hubbert Curve and the peak oil phenomenon for more details. I can supply links if you wish.

We are right at the cusp of this. It will never be relatively cheaper to make the switch. If we wait it will require a MUCH greater portion of our economy to do it.

[RandomGuy]

I think they did a great job on the R&D... and if they could build it in volumes like other car manufacturers, you could chop the price in half, easily.
But the infrastructure is not there. They still need to do more work on the range (improved battery tech). And obviously, the market is simply not interested yet.

But it was a nice glimpse on what the market forces could lead to if fossil fuel is ever on the way out.

What will happen will be a combination of things.

We will start living closer to our jobs, causing cities to be denser overall. This will, in parallel, make mass transit even more attractive.

We will start manufacturing more things closer to where they are ultimately consumed. Think of the cost of transportion of matter as a "tax" of sorts on things that must be imported from far away.

[DarrinS]

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

The studies that have been done on the data, much at the behest of people who believe as you do have generally upheld the "hockey stick"s implications.

My reading of this says that "thoroughly debunked" is something of a stretch.




Well, you can feed a random signal through the algorithm of Michael Mann and it will produce hockey-shaped graphs. Sounds pretty bogus to me.

Here, you can download data and make your own. It's not rocket science.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html







Yet another thing you have in common with the 9-11 nutters:

You declare victory conclusively based on little more than your own predispositions on which side in a scientific debate you want to believe in.




Eh, go sell that shit somewhere else. It ain't workin.

[DarrinS]

Please show me where "recent IPCC reports used the infamous "hockey stick" graph".

From the link that you, yourself posted.



This chart is Figure 1(b) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report, (c) 2001 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The source of this image is a PDF file that can be downloaded here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1_TAR-FRONT.PDF


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

[ElNono]

That is one of the main problems with things like tar sands. This is the concept of "vanishing horizons". The profitability analysis of things like this posits revenues based on certain oil prices, but fails to account how those prices will affect costs.

Again, it doesn't matter. You don't have to do absolutely anything for the market to go gradually adjusting based on prices.


Actually the implication is that it is much more cost-effective to do it now, as energy is cheaper, relative to a dollar of GDP.

It only is if we could ascertain with any degree of certainty that we're going to be running short of fossil fuel. Which we can't at this point. Which means that, right now, it would be a bad investment and a waste of money.


If you wait until oil plays out to start on this, the costs of switching over get commensurately and proportionally higher.

But we don't know IF 'oil will play out'.


We will see a period of declining supply for oil over the coming decades:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/energy/world-oil-prod-proj.gif

We will? I see a graph from 2004 that, among other things, doesn't tell me if it accounts for new fields discovered, if it accounts for the the technological advances in drilling over time, etc. I hate graphics unless they're concise to what we're discussing. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.


Overall demand will only increase in that time for a variety of factors. Read up on the Hubbert Curve and the peak oil phenomenon for more details. I can supply links if you wish.

Again, your entire premise is based on Peak Oil and the Hubbert peak theory (can't stress this enough). You know, that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished. Well, we don't know that. We actually don't know that at all.


We are right at the cusp of this. It will never be relatively cheaper to make the switch. If we wait it will require a MUCH greater portion of our economy to do it.

It would actually be irrational and a waste of money to do so now, under the premise of an alarmist theory. If anything, there are indicators that we'll have more supply and from different sources than in the past (like Brazil, which I mentioned before). That is indeed a fact.

[RandomGuy]

It only is if we could ascertain with any degree of certainty that we're going to be running short of fossil fuel. Which we can't at this point. Which means that, right now, it would be a bad investment and a waste of money.

But we don't know IF 'oil will play out'.


Well, the oil companies themselves have seen enough data to be certain.

Read a couple of Exxon's latest annual reports where they actually talk about it.

We can with a pretty good degree of certainty both know that oil will play out and when. The oil companies, who literally make it their business to know, and have hundreds of billions of dollars on the line have made their own projections and that lines up fairly squarely with a lot of the independently produced projections.

Oil production and extraction follows a very predictable, bell-shaped pattern. That pattern played out in each individual state in the US, for the US in the aggregate, and for every other major oil producing country. The same pattern shows up when one aggregates world oil production, or at least the first half of the bell curve has.

There is still a LOT of oil out there, but the oil that is there will require more energy and money to extract. It will be extracted as we progress down the downwards part of the bell curve, but simple physics will dictate that our demands for energy, all other things being equal, MUST go up as the efficiency of that source declines.

Please do not confuse the technological capacity to get at some oil deposits with being able to economically produce that oil, or, in the case of the massive amounts of sour crude, being able to economically turn that oil into a form where it's available energy can be used.

Here is a good bit on that:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#eroei


energy return on energy invested, or EROEI
When an energy source that has an EROEI ratio of 4:1 is replaced with another, alternative, energy source which has an EROEI ratio of 2:1, twice as much gross energy has to be produced in order to reap the same net quantity of resulting usable energy.

This can be worse than it looks. Consider that I inherited one barrel of oil, and the EROEI was 4:1. I could use my one barrel and end up with four barrels. Now consider that the EROEI was 2:1, and I still wanted four barrels. Well, I can use my one barrel to extract two barrels, then I have to use those two barrels to extract the four barrels that I want. Thus with an EROEI of 2:1, it has cost me three barrels to gain four; whereas with an EROEI of 4:1, it only cost me one barrel.

(quick note: oils actual EROI is currently estimated to be, according to that website about 30:1, but this varies widely depending on the source of the oil and its underlying quality)

You don't have to believe me specifically, but we are not finding new oil as fast as we are consuming it. The oil that is left will be less and less efficient in terms of the amount of usuable energy to be had from each new marginal unit.

In short, you are wrong about that. Oil WILL play out, and we are almost certain that it will play out at an increasingly fast rate over the next 40-60 years or so. There will still be oil pumped after that but not on any scale needed to sustain our economy in its present form.

Don't trust me. Do some digging, and some reading. The information is there, and readily accessible.

[RandomGuy]

If anybody wants links to support this, I will spend a lunch hour putting some of it together. Some of the people who have this data go into apocolyptic predictions about what will happen as oil plays itself out, but those scenarios are, in my opinion, highly unlikely.

[RandomGuy]

From the link that you, yourself posted.

[picture omitted for brevity]

That is from 2001. Do you have anything newer Darrin?

You presume to judge that the entire thing has been "thoroughly debunked", but then admit you base that on nothing but anecdotal evidence.

Color me unconvinced of your theory.

[DarrinS]

That is from 2001. Do you have anything newer Darrin?

You presume to judge that the entire thing has been "thoroughly debunked", but then admit you base that on nothing but anecdotal evidence.

Color me unconvinced of your theory.



I do computer modeling for a living. If a model produces the same output, regardless of input, I'd say that model is pretty useless.


Did you ever try your hand at reproducing your own hockey stick? This guy walks you through it, step by step.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html

[DarrinS]

Which reconstruction do you believe?


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4175600324_8ec42a74ce_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2549/4175600322_12ce1570bb_o.jpg

[RandomGuy]

I do computer modeling for a living. If a model produces the same output, regardless of input, I'd say that model is pretty useless.


... and I evaluate evidence and documentation to determine if that documentation supports various assertions and conclusions for a living.

You are a poster child for confirmation bias, and that severely hampers your ability to evaluate data in a logical manner.

Since you don't hold the sources that you agree with to the same standands of evidence as those you don't, I see no point in following any link you give me, as you do not have the decency to return the favor.

In that you are just like mouse and cosmored and all the others with their shitty youtube videos that you foist on others, fully expecting them to watch and read, and refusing, in turn, to extend the courtesy.

[RandomGuy]

Which reconstruction do you believe?


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4175600324_8ec42a74ce_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2549/4175600322_12ce1570bb_o.jpg

I generally believe the one based on more data.

In this case, though, I can't know the source data for either, and since they are not on the same scales/axes I cannot determine if they even can be relevantly compared.

The fact that you seem to think they can says volumes.

[Phenomanul]

Legalized abortion matters less than access to regular birth control and simple economic development according to all the data I am familiar with.

But thanks for playing the "I let my ideological biases and emotional hot buttons drive my interpretation of all data" game.

Please provide proof of the assertion that "legalized abortion" is either a main cause, or the main cause of reduced birth rates in any country.

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

:lmao

The comment was made facetiously.... do I have to write [sarcasm] in the footnotes for ya?

[Phenomanul]

...

[Brazil]

yeah I know I'm hot

[DarrinS]

You are a poster child for confirmation bias, and that severely hampers your ability to evaluate data in a logical manner.




AGW theory is rife with confirmation bias. Is there any confirmation bias in the last 10-12 years of global temperature data?







Since you don't hold the sources that you agree with to the same standands of evidence as those you don't, I see no point in following any link you give me, as you do not have the decency to return the favor.



That's absurd. I've pointed out that IPCC reports have had numerical errors. I don't care if you're Joe six-pack climate blogger or an IPCC lead author, if you are wrong, mathematically, by a factor of 10 or 20, you should be called out on it. If something is added up wrong, it doesn't matter if I "like" or "agree" with a particular source. Wrong is wrong. As an accountant, you should be able to appreciate that.





In that you are just like mouse and cosmored and all the others with their shitty youtube videos that you foist on others, fully expecting them to watch and read, and refusing, in turn, to extend the courtesy.




Do you have a shitty Youtube video you want me to watch? I'm not sure I understand your last point.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

The comment was made facetiously.... do I have to write [sarcasm] in the footnotes for ya?

:lol

It might help. Sorry for the snit fit.

[RandomGuy]

I've pointed out that IPCC reports have had numerical errors. Wrong is wrong. As an accountant, you should be able to appreciate that.


As an accountant, I also have a concept called "materiality".

Errors are unavoidable in data collection. One can avoid them using sound sampling and statistical means, but they are inevitable.

Taking that into account (HA!), if those errors substantially, i.e. materially, affect an overall conclusion, such as "this bond portfolio overall made money in 2008", then one should reject that conclusion.

However,

The one or two indepedent looks at the "hockey stick" as you call it, did outline some errors but found that the underlying conclusions still were generally supported by the evidence presented.

This is why I don't really accept your "thoughly debunked" statement.

Since 2001, more data has been added, and that data and other methodologies independet of the methods used to compose "hockey stick" has tended to confirm it.

What I do not trust is your evaluation of data you admit you won't actually read.

[DarrinS]

Nice code these climate scientists use.




;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

[DarrinS]

What I do not trust is your evaluation of data you admit you won't actually read.





What is it that you think I won't read? You've repeated this claim numerous times already. If there's something you want me to read, be specific. Post a link. Don't be overly general like "read the IPCC reports". I haven't read EACH AND EVERY piece of scientific literature and I haven't read EACH AND EVERY IPCC report. Neither have you.


If there's a specific article or study that you think is so damned compelling, then post a link to it and I promise I'll read it (if I haven't already).

[ElNono]

Well, the oil companies themselves have seen enough data to be certain.

Read a couple of Exxon's latest annual reports where they actually talk about it.

We can with a pretty good degree of certainty both know that oil will play out and when. The oil companies, who literally make it their business to know, and have hundreds of billions of dollars on the line have made their own projections and that lines up fairly squarely with a lot of the independently produced projections.

Oil production and extraction follows a very predictable, bell-shaped pattern. That pattern played out in each individual state in the US, for the US in the aggregate, and for every other major oil producing country. The same pattern shows up when one aggregates world oil production, or at least the first half of the bell curve has.

There is still a LOT of oil out there, but the oil that is there will require more energy and money to extract. It will be extracted as we progress down the downwards part of the bell curve, but simple physics will dictate that our demands for energy, all other things being equal, MUST go up as the efficiency of that source declines.

Please do not confuse the technological capacity to get at some oil deposits with being able to economically produce that oil, or, in the case of the massive amounts of sour crude, being able to economically turn that oil into a form where it's available energy can be used.

Here is a good bit on that:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#eroei



(quick note: oils actual EROI is currently estimated to be, according to that website about 30:1, but this varies widely depending on the source of the oil and its underlying quality)

You don't have to believe me specifically, but we are not finding new oil as fast as we are consuming it. The oil that is left will be less and less efficient in terms of the amount of usuable energy to be had from each new marginal unit.

In short, you are wrong about that. Oil WILL play out, and we are almost certain that it will play out at an increasingly fast rate over the next 40-60 years or so. There will still be oil pumped after that but not on any scale needed to sustain our economy in its present form.

Don't trust me. Do some digging, and some reading. The information is there, and readily accessible.

That you convinced yourself that oil will play out doesn't mean that it will. For every quote of an oil executive saying oil will play out, I can find a quote from another one saying that it won't. Again, you don't dispute that peak oil is a theory, not a scientific law. Which is enough to tell me we simply don't know conclusively that it will play out. What you want is for me to have a leap of faith that it will, but I'm a man of science.

As far as when is the proper time to switch in the case we want to switch away from fossil fuels, that also is going to be determined by the market. Even if it's not the most efficient time, it's simply the time where prices no longer justify keeping up with the current infrastructure, and it makes more sense to build new infrastructure in the long run. Right now there's absolutely no sane justification to do that at least in the US. In other countries, for example Argentina where I was last September, Natural Gas powered cars are pretty common. On their economy, it already has made sense for cab owners to retrofit their cars, and most gas stations have been retrofited also.

Still fossil fuels though. Right now, it doesn't make economic sense to switch to anything else.

[RandomGuy]

Do you have a shitty Youtube video you want me to watch?

-JD6gOrARk4









(not that it has anything to do with the discussion, but you should watch it, 'cause it is cool.)

[RandomGuy]

That you convinced yourself that oil will play out doesn't mean that it will. For every quote of an oil executive saying oil will play out, I can find a quote from another one saying that it won't.

I have reviewed enough data to determine that it is highly likely that it will. It is one of the few things that I will ever say with any real high degree of certainty. The only question is what we do about it.

I personally know of no analysis of reserves that would support the notion that oil wil not "play out". Nobody with any expertise and/or credibility on the subject has made such claim that I can find.

But since you have made the assertion that you can find quotes from "an oil executive" that it won't, I call bullshit.

Your turn to provide some support.

[TeyshaBlue]

-JD6gOrARk4









(not that it has anything to do with the discussion, but you should watch it, 'cause it is cool.)

ROFL. :lol

[RandomGuy]

For my part, I can show some technical data that outlines how oil is being produced faster than it it is being discovered.

Further, as the light, sweet crude that is easy to get at starts becoming rarer, we will be faced with using the technologically possible, but much less efficient sour crude.

Rather basic economic theory concerning production curves dictate the the best/easiest/most efficient resources will be utilized first in the production of any given product, and each unit after the top of the supply curve will be prduced at greater and greater cost. (note this is the "snapshot in time" supply curve, and NOT the Hubbert oil production curve describing production over time)

We have, in the last decade or two had to start drilling that technologically difficult and/or generally less energetically dense stuff. This decreases our return on invested energy.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/gagnon-EROItimetrend.png

Data for this graph was derived from "A Preliminary Investigation of Energy Return on Energy Investment for Global Oil and Gas Production" Gagnon, Hall, Brinker, the full text of which can be seen by clicking here for the PDF (http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/3/490/pdf). This paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal "Energies". http://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies


ABSTRACT: Economies are fueled by energy produced in excess of the amount required to drive the energy production process. Therefore any successful society’s energy resources must be both abundant and exploitable with a high ratio of energy return on energy invested (EROI). Unfortunately most of the data kept on costs of oil and gas operations are in monetary, not energy, terms. Fortunately we can convert monetary values into approximate energy values by deriving energy intensities for monetary transactions from those few nations that keep both sets of data. We provide a preliminary assessment of EROI for the world’s most important fuels, oil and gas, based on time series of global production and estimates of energy inputs derived from monetary expenditures for all publicly traded oil and gas companies and estimates of energy intensities of those expenditures. We estimate that EROI at the wellhead was roughly 26:1 in 1992, increased to 35:1 in 1999, and then decreased to 18:1 in 2006. These trends imply that global supplies of petroleum available to do economic work are considerably less than estimates of gross reserves and that EROI is declining over time and with increased annual drilling levels. Our global estimates of EROI have a pattern similar to, but somewhat higher than, the United States, which has better data on energy costs but a more depleted resource base.

(note: a good analysis can be found here: http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/5600 )

Note that this first speaks to the concept necessary for oil to "play out" that as we wind our way down the Hubbert curve, the oil we extract will be less and less efficient.

The problem in trying to assert that oil won't play out is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics, as well as the most basic underpinnings of economics.

Technology may make, and has made more oil available, but THAT OIL IS GENERALLY NOT EFFICIENT AS THE OIL THAT CAME BEFORE IT in terms of the amount of energy needed to extract it.

The proxy for energy in this case is simply money. Which costs less to extract per barrel: A billion barrel deposit that requires a single $1,000,000 dollar oil rig on land to extract or a 10 billion barrel deposit that requires a $7,000,000,000 deep sea rig to extract? If one were to measure the amount of energy needed to fully construct the land-based rig, versus that required for the deep sea oil rig, one would certainly find a fairly good parallel between the two in comparative energy required.

[DarrinS]

Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

See

cdC6B17YMDE

[RandomGuy]

What is it that you think I won't read? You've repeated this claim numerous times already. If there's something you want me to read, be specific. Post a link. Don't be overly general like "read the IPCC reports". I haven't read EACH AND EVERY piece of scientific literature and I haven't read EACH AND EVERY IPCC report. Neither have you.


If there's a specific article or study that you think is so damned compelling, then post a link to it and I promise I'll read it (if I haven't already).

Fair enough. Give me some time, and I will do some digging around and get back to you.

[RandomGuy]

Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

See

cdC6B17YMDE

I liked my youtube better. :wow

(changes underwear)

[Wild Cobra]

Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

See

cdC6B17YMDE
LOL...

Not quite what I expected. I thought maybe a normal large bottom feeder decided a taste of live food, and someone didn't know what type of fish it was.

[RandomGuy]

Rumor has it that global warming is doing strage things to the fish.

See



Here is a good summary of data and studies. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf)

[RandomGuy]

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-4.jpg

Here is the updated bit that WC seems like harping on. (LOSU = Level of Scientific Understanding)


Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures
since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.8
This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to
have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure
2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean,
together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely
unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can
be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not
due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of
solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling,
not warming. Warming of the climate system has been detected in
changes in surface and atmospheric temperatures and in temperatures
of the upper several hundred metres of the ocean. The observed
pattern of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling
is very likely due to the combined influences of GHG increases and
stratospheric ozone depletion. It is likely that increases in GHG
concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed
because volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols have offset
some warming that would otherwise have taken place. {WGI 2.9, 3.2,
3.4, 4.8, 5.2, 7.5, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, TS.4.1, SPM}
It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic
warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent
(except Antarctica) (Figure 2.5). {WGI 3.2, 9.4, SPM}
The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming
over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are
simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No
coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only
has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual
continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century.
{WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM}

[DarrinS]

Here is a good summary of data and studies. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf)



Gee, another IPCC report. Thanks.


Why not just give me a link to Al Gore's latest and greatest carbon-trading website?


http://www.wecansolveit.org/

[RandomGuy]

Gee, another IPCC report. Thanks.


Why not just give me a link to Al Gore's latest and greatest carbon-trading website?


http://www.wecansolveit.org/

You mentioned modeling:

Do you actually know what they do?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

..or do you just take others' word for it?

[RandomGuy]

Still fossil fuels though. Right now, it doesn't make economic sense to switch to anything else.

The first country that makes the leap to crossing over will gain a rather substantial competitive advantage.

This will make Europe, with its dense cities, and commitment to renewables way more competitive, relatively to economies that don't.

It is all the same to me. Time will tell who ends up right about the oil thing.

As I have said before, it is one of the few macro-economic trends on which there is much certainty.

[DarrinS]

You mentioned modeling:

Do you actually know what they do?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

..or do you just take others' word for it?



Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.

-Box and Draper, Empirical Model-Building, p. 74

[RandomGuy]

Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.

-Box and Draper, Empirical Model-Building, p. 74

How can you judge how wrong the models used are if you don't read about the methodology used?

(note: your post amounts to little more than ad hominem)

[DarrinS]

How can you judge how wrong the models used are if you don't read about the methodology used?

(note: your post amounts to little more than ad hominem)



Quite simple. If a model has poor predictive capability, it is pretty useless, regardless of how "complex" the model is.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
-Keven Trenberth (climate scientist)

[RandomGuy]

Quite simple. If a model has poor predictive capability, it is pretty useless, regardless of how "complex" the model is.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
-Keven Trenberth (climate scientist)

Ad hominem, rinse repeat. Your posts start sounding like shampoo directions.

Since you have chosen not to fairly treat evidence or what people actually assert in full context:



Frequently Asked Question 8.1
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections
of Future Climate Change?


There is considerable confi dence that climate models provide
credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly
at continental scales and above. This confi dence comes from the
foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from
their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and
past climate changes. Confi dence in model estimates is higher
for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others
(e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models
have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of
signifi cant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse
gases.

Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate
system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful
computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the
fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical
laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum,
along with a wealth of observations.
A second source of confidence comes from the ability of
models to simulate important aspects of the current climate.
Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing
their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean,
cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation
have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised
multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate
features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric
temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic
temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate
essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability
observed across a range of time scales. Examples include
the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the
seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and
the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures
(the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate
models, or closely related variants, have also been tested
by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts.
These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they
can represent important features of the general circulation
across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and
interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and
other important climate features increases our confidence that
they represent the essential physical processes important for
the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations
in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a
few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate
changes, as these are very different types of prediction – see
FAQ 1.2.)

A third source of confidence comes from the ability of models
to reproduce features of past climates and climate changes.
Models have been used to simulate ancient climates, such as
the warm mid-Holocene of 6,000 years ago or the last glacial
maximum of 21,000 years ago (see Chapter 6). They can
reproduce many features (allowing for uncertainties in reconstructing
past climates) such as the magnitude and broad-scale
pattern of oceanic cooling during the last ice age. Models can
also simulate many observed aspects of climate change over the
instrumental record. One example is that the global temperature
trend over the past century (shown in Figure 1) can be modelled
with high skill when both human and natural factors that
influence climate are included. Models also reproduce other observed
changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than
in daytime temperatures, the larger degree of warming in the
Arctic and the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent
recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such
as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 (see FAQ 8.1, Figure 1). Model
global temperature projections made over the last two decades
have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations
over that period (Chapter 1).
Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although
these are generally greater at smaller scales, important largescale
problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain
in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-
Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an
observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time
scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such
errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be
represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in
approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features.
This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also
results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the
availability of detailed observations of some physical processes.
Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the
representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses
to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a
substantial range of global temperature change in response to
specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such
uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction
of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases,
and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with
independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from
observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions.
Since confidence in the changes projected by global models
decreases at smaller scales, other techniques, such as the use of
regional climate models, or downscaling methods, have been
specifically developed for the study of regional- and local-scale
climate change (see FAQ 11.1). However, as global models continue
to develop, and their resolution continues to improve,
they are becoming increasingly useful for investigating important
smaller-scale features, such as changes in extreme weather
events, and further improvements in regional-scale representation
are expected with increased computing power. Models are
also becoming more comprehensive in their treatment of the
climate system, thus explicitly representing more physical and
biophysical processes and interactions considered potentially
important for climate change, particularly at longer time scales.
Examples are the recent inclusion of plant responses, ocean
biological and chemical interactions, and ice sheet dynamics in
some global climate models.
In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical
basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past
climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important
tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is
considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible
quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at
larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations,
such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties
in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details,
of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades
of model development, they have consistently provided a robust
and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response
to increasing greenhouse gases.

[DarrinS]

^Wow. A bunch of verbiage from the IPCC saying how good their models are. If they wrote it down, it must be true.


Observation is the ultimate judge.

[RandomGuy]

^Wow. A bunch of verbiage from the IPCC saying how good their models are. If they wrote it down, it must be true.


Observation is the ultimate judge.


Models have proven to be extremely important
tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is
considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible
quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at
larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations,
such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties
in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details,
of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades
of model development, they have consistently provided a robust
and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response
to increasing greenhouse gases.

Actually they acknowledge the limitations of what they do.

That is called being intellectually honest.

It is what real scientists do.

The thing about the models and all the other studies they summarize and review.

No one thing is ever said to be conclusive. They couch their conclusions rather carefully, using words such as "very likely" or "likely".

They have weighed large amounts of data, and have concluded that, on the whole, we appear to be having a growing impact on the overall global climate.

[RandomGuy]

For every quote of an oil executive saying oil will play out, I can find a quote from another one saying that it won't.

Still waiting on this one.

Please provide an expert opinion saying that oil will not "play out".

The best scientific data we have on reserves says that we are not finding it as fast as we are using it up.

You seem to be sceptical, but do you base that on actual data, or your own theory?

[ElNono]

Still waiting on this one.

Please provide an expert opinion saying that oil will not "play out".

The best scientific data we have on reserves says that we are not finding it as fast as we are using it up.

You seem to be sceptical, but do you base that on actual data, or your own theory?

I'm sorry. I thought a mere google would do it...

Dr. Christoph Rühl, Chief economist of BP, repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oil hypothesis:[185]

Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. (...)In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything.... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms)

Do you disagree that Peak Oil is just a theory nowadays?

[ElNono]

The first country that makes the leap to crossing over will gain a rather substantial competitive advantage.

This will make Europe, with its dense cities, and commitment to renewables way more competitive, relatively to economies that don't.

Opinion.


It is all the same to me. Time will tell who ends up right about the oil thing.

As I have said before, it is one of the few macro-economic trends on which there is much certainty.

Again, market economics will determine what is economically viable or not. Wether oil plays out or not, the market, through pricing, will adjust accordingly.

There's plenty of smart investors out there in the energy market that I'm sure will seize on any opportunity that makes economic sense.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sorry. I thought a mere google would do it...

Dr. Christoph Rühl, Chief economist of BP, repeatedly uttered strong doubts about the peak oil hypothesis:[185]

Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. (...)In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything.... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. (...) Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Criticisms)

Do you disagree that Peak Oil is just a theory nowadays?

Thanks.

The entire interview is here:

http://www.euractiv.com/de/energie/bp-preisschwankungen-wahrscheinlich-zunehmen/article-175931

I would actually tend to agree with his assessments.

Much of the "peak oil" concept unnecessarily includes hysteronics about malthusian death spirals.

He makes the valid point that as the price of oil goes up (the intersection between the supply and demand curves), there will always be more hydrocarbons/oil to be had.

That is true.

It is also true that the overall return on energy of those new sources will get lower.

I would never make the contention that oil will completely run out, just that it's economic utility will fall over time, as it gets less an less efficient in term of Return On Invested Energy (ROIE)

As the man stated in the interview:
"you can turn anything into oil into if you are willing to pay the financial and environmental price"

I see a lot of demand destruction for oil as it becomes less and less efficient comparatively. That will be the mechanism that has us shifting our energy usage to other forms over time, as a natural reaction to market prices.

I do agree that peak oil is a theory, but it is a theory that is backed by some fairly good data and historical patterns.

You are also correct that we have used technology to unlock new oil fields, and we will continue to do so. This will make the downward slope a lot more of a shallow drop off than the upwards slope of the curve.

The case I am stating is that, over time, oil will, compared to other energy sources, become more and more expensive.

I do not try to make the case that we will run out of oil, and Mr. Rühl would agree.

He does seem to think that demand will be constrained far before supply will. On that, I would tend to disagree, if for no other reason than for the reduced ROIE that we will see over time.

It is highly probable that we will see the ROIE fall over time at the same time that we will see continued economic growth in Asia, both of which are big demand drivers.

[RandomGuy]

"The first country that makes the leap to crossing over will gain a rather substantial competitive advantage.

This will make Europe, with its dense cities, and commitment to renewables way more competitive, relatively to economies that don't. "--RG


Opinion.

Indeed it is. Europe will face a host of other problems related to an aging population though.




Again, market economics will determine what is economically viable or not. Wether oil plays out or not, the market, through pricing, will adjust accordingly.

There's plenty of smart investors out there in the energy market that I'm sure will seize on any opportunity that makes economic sense.

I agree.

The thing though about technology is that the first person to get to a technology gets the patent, plus the ability to improve on that.

The main problem with waiting entirely until there is a glaring need is that investment capital tends to seek short-term returns, and basic research is not the kind of thing that yields that.

This is a long-term problem that will require long-term solutions.

We need to be a bit smarter than the next fiscal quarters' results.

[ElNono]

The thing though about technology is that the first person to get to a technology gets the patent, plus the ability to improve on that.

The main problem with waiting entirely until there is a glaring need is that investment capital tends to seek short-term returns, and basic research is not the kind of thing that yields that.

This is a long-term problem that will require long-term solutions.

We need to be a bit smarter than the next fiscal quarters' results.

I think we mostly agree. I just trust in the normal economic development, while you want to 'beat the rush', if you will.

I'm just going to add: Don't underestimate investors. Not everyone is merely looking at the next quarter. It's just that those looking further ahead still don't see a clear-cut picture that dissing oil is the prudent thing to do at this time.