DrumBeat: September 26, 2008
Posted by Leanan on September 26, 2008 - 10:02am
“SPECULATORS are back and prices are up,” moaned James May, the head of the Air Transport Association, a trade group for American airlines, on September 22nd. He was referring to the record jump in the price of oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) that day, from $104.55 to $120.92. At one point, the price was up by more than $25.Mr May was not the only one to blame speculators. Truck drivers with similar views converged on Congress the following day, honking their horns in protest. The Democrats have vowed to pass a law crimping speculation. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates NYMEX, has promised an investigation.
But oil analysts have a more prosaic explanation. The oil price had been falling because of the worsening prospects for the world economy and the closure of several refineries during recent hurricanes, which reduced demand for oil. Then it began to rise again, thanks both to the plans for a bail-out of struggling banks and to the reopening of refineries. That would not have caused such a huge leap in prices were it not for an accident of timing.
Cash-Rich Oil Firms Snap Up Assets
The turmoil on Wall Street is reshaping the U.S. oil industry, forcing debt-laden smaller producers to sell assets and creating opportunities for larger, cash-rich companies that until recently had been criticized by investors for spending too conservatively.
Oil output losses worse than feared
The amount of oil production losses caused by hurricanes Ike and Gustav in the energy-rich US Gulf of Mexico is far greater than initially predicted, helping to keep prices above $100 (€68, £54) a barrel in spite of slower economic growth.Refineries have been particularly badly hit, with a lack of power slowing their return to operation. The output drop is forcing fuel distributors to draw down the country's gasoline stocks to the lowest level in 41 years to maintain supplies.
Weak US Oil Demand Blunts Storm Outages
For Mexico's state oil company, Pemex, the good news came when twin severe hurricanes avoided its offshore oil platforms this month.The bad news came after the storms struck U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, slashing oil demand in its biggest market. Pemex said late Wednesday it has been forced to trim its already struggling oil output by 250,000 barrels a day, or 9%, due to brimming inventories caused by lingering outages at U.S. plants.
The good news-bad news scenario that bedeviled Pemex plays out across the U.S. energy map in the wake of hurricanes Gustav and Ike.
Shell says delaying some turnarounds due to hurricanes
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Shell Oil Co. will delay turnaround maintenance at some Gulf Coast sites due to the effects of hurricanes Gustav and Ike, the company said in a press release Friday.
Moscow strengthens presence in U.S.' backyard
MOSCOW — When the Bush administration dispatched two U.S. warships to the Black Sea to deliver humanitarian aid to war-stricken Georgia, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reacted with indignation and a warning."There will be an answer," Putin said during a visit to Uzbekistan. Asked to elaborate, he replied, "You'll see."
Venezuela, Russia join forces on oil ventures
VENEZUELA and Russia plan to create a giant oil consortium to invest in joint oil ventures."They've offered us the chance to create an oil consortium...the largest in the world," Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said in televised remarks from Moscow.
Russia Sees PVDSA in Control of Energy JV
Venezuela's national oil company will probably have control of a planned joint venture with Russia to develop oil and gas resources, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko told reporters on Friday."Venezuela's national restrictions are tough," Shmatko said on the sidelines of a visit to Russia by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. "We are unlikely to have control."
CHIANG MAI - Once committed largely to perceived safe-haven investments in the United States, Gulf nations are now looking to send their petrodollar surpluses towards a more exotic global destination: Southeast Asian farmland.
UN to buy emergency food stocks from poorer farmers
More than 350,000 small-scale farmers in Africa and Central America will soon begin selling produce to the UN in an initiative that could transform the way food aid is purchased.Announcing the five-year $76m (£41m) pilot project yesterday, the UN's World Food Programme said it would buy surplus crops from low-income farmers in 21 countries to help boost fragile economies. The food will be used for regional hunger emergencies and safety net schemes, such as school feeding projects.
Indonesia: Food prices 'to remain high in next four years'
Global food prices are to remain high until 2012 given high demand amid fast-growing population and rapid biofuel development, the Agriculture Ministry has warned.Achmad Suryana, head of the ministry's Food Security Agency, said Wednesday evening, population growth and increasing biofuel projects would push up the global stock-to-consumption ratio for many crops.
Amphibians facing a wipeout by 2050
Half of Europe’s amphibian species could be wiped out in the next 40 years. Scientists from the Zoological Society of London say that the combined force of climate change, pollution, disease and habitat loss and degradation has left many with “nowhere to run”.
Bill Gates goes green with algae biofuel investment
The world’s richest software geek, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, is one of the investors behind the latest round of funding for algae biofuel company Sapphire Energy.
Bright idea gives solar-power cyclists a fresh pair of legs
London A solar-assisted bicycle that gives riders extra pedal power has been invented.The bright yellow device operates like a normal pedal cycle but has a canopy lined with solar cells overhead.
Rising solar output could hit producers' margins
NEW YORK/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Solar companies' success in ramping up new production lines and factories could leave the fast-growing renewable energy market awash in solar panels next year, driving down prices and profit margins in the nascent industry.The recent move by this year's hottest solar market, Spain, to cut its cap on subsidies for new solar panels has sparked fears that big producers may see their selling prices drop by as much as 20 percent as they scramble to sell out their production.
Japan Posts Surprise Trade Deficit
TOKYO -- Japan, a nation that rode exports to become the world's second largest economy, posted a surprise trade deficit in August, an alarm signal for the country's already shrinking economy and yet another worrisome indicator for troubled global markets....The government attributed the trade deficit to a short-term imbalance: Falling car exports and higher energy costs. Four of Japan's five largest carmakers said this week that global demand was falling, especially in the United States. At the same time, the cost of imported oil and coal soared to record highs.
Gas Shortage In the South Creates Panic, Long Lines: If Drivers Can Fill Up, They Get Sticker Shock
Drivers in Charlotte reported lines with as many as 60 cars waiting to fill up late Wednesday night, and a community college in Asheville, N.C., where most of the 25,000 students commute, canceled classes and closed down Wednesday afternoon for the rest of the week. Shortages also hit Nashville, Knoxville and Spartanburg, S.C., AAA said.Terrance Bragg, a chef in Charlotte, made it to work only because his grandfather drove from a town an hour away with a 5-gallon plastic container of fuel for him. Three of his co-workers called and said they couldn't make it.
"I drove past nine or ten gasoline stations that were out of gas," Bragg said. "I had my GPS up looking for any gas in the area, from the mom-and-pop places to the corporate gas stations. Nothing. They were all taped off."
Drivers are at mercy of a few refineries
Panic buying, dwindling inventories and a pair of unpredictable storms all played a part in creating the gas shortages that tightened in Middle Tennessee over the past two weeks.But as shocking as the short-term loss of gasoline was to the region, it could have been much worse, analysts said this week.
"We really did dodge a bullet," said Bruce Bullock, director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "If it had hit 15 or 20 miles down the coast, we could have had the refineries out for nine to 12 months."
Fuel shortage worsened by timing of hurricanes
The timing of back-to-back Hurricanes Gustav and Ike is partly to blame for gas shortages that have been worse than those following more destructive storms in the same Gulf Coast region, experts and industry officials say.The storms hit at a time when refineries had decreased production to switch from summer-grade to winter-grade fuel, said Tex Pitfield, president of gas hauler Saraguay Petroleum Corp. in Atlanta.
Western Pennsylvania motorists shouldn't see the gas shortages that are plaguing areas of the Southeast, but that doesn't mean there isn't some drama going on behind the scenes, or before the pump.Carriers from Ohio crossing the state line for cheaper gasoline are making it harder to get fuel to local stations, said Don Bowers, manager of petroleum products for Superior Petroleum Co., a Ross-based oil products distributor.
Gas shortage may crimp weekend fun
Metro Atlanta’s gas crunch showed little sign of abating Friday morning, posing potential complications not just for commuters but also for people planning to drive to big weekend events.The University of Georgia home game against Top 10 rival Alabama. The 20th anniversary of the Atlanta Football Classic. The North Georgia State Fair in Marietta. The PGA Tour Championship. Auburn at home versus Tennessee.
These are just a few of the major events within a day’s drive of metro Atlanta planned for today through Sunday. But with North Georgia gas supplies spotty, will everyone be able to get where they’re going?
No, said local fuel distributor Tex Pitfield, the chief executive of Saraguay Petroleum in Atlanta.
Pitfield has called on Gov. Sonny Perdue to cancel Saturday’s UGA game to avert tens of thousands of Athens-bound motorists putting further pressure on the region’s gas supplies.
School systems work to conserve gas for buses
As school systems wind down their financial years, the fuel situation is getting down to the wire for some.The situation was not improved by Hurricane Ike’s disruption of oil supply from the Gulf of Mexico a few weeks ago.
The Exxon station in Cashiers put a $25 limit on gas purchases Wednesday and today. The measure has ensured that the station in a rural area of Jackson County has gas for most of the day – from 6 a.m. - 2 p.m. for the past few days – and limited long lines and angry customers.People are actually thanking us," said station owner Jim Nichols. "The working person is able to get to work and home and have fuel everyday to get to do what they need to do."
THE DMK Government in Tamil Nadu is facing its toughest test yet since its coming to power in May 2006. Faced with an unprecedented power shortage of about 2,000 MW (against the state’s total demand of about 10,000 MW), the government is finding it hard to cope with the crisis. The situation turned grim in late August when parts of the state went without power for about five hours every day. Chennai and its suburbs suffered power cuts for between one-and-a-half to three hours.
India: Demand for kerosene, diesel shoots up
The loadshedding in the district has pushed up demand for kerosene and diesel as merchants have started using generators to operate their business establishments.Faced with the 'five-hour official power cut', they have no choice but to buy the fuel to keep their business running, trade sources here said.
India: Shortage of coal may fuel power crisis
Mahagenco says that it barely has stocks and is in a critical condition.
Indonesia: Industries may face gas supply shortage
Indonesian industries could suffer a gas shortage of up to 200 billion British thermal units per day (BBtud) next year as state gas distributor PT PGN begins increasing supplies to state power firm PT PLN.
Thailand: Shell delays E20 on supply concerns
Shell will delay its launch of E20 gasohol from the third quarter to the end of the year because of an ethanol supply shortage."If we expand our gasohol pump network as planned earlier, it requires at least 200,000 litres of ethanol per day. But now I don't think we can make it as ethanol makers prefer to export to gain higher profits," said Tiraphot Vajrabhaya, the chairman of Shell Thailand.
An alternative nuclear-energy solution
There may be a workable way to solve most of America's energy problems, end dependence on foreign oil and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions with little pain.Remarkably, in this presidential election year, no one mentions this single most promising technique.
This may be because its name contains the word "reactor." The notion of power plants using the Integral Fast Reactor, or IFR, a sophisticated form of nuclear technology, apparently is an anathema to today's politicians.
And yet this technology is demonstrably safer than any existing nuclear power plant, depends almost completely on recycling for its fuel and would make virtually no contribution to worldwide climate change.
Heating with wood to save money
LAKE PLACID — Dan Plumley has been heating the roughly 1,800-square-foot home he rents in Keene with wood since 1988. He sometimes supplements his basement woodstove with electric baseboard heat.Plumley, who has a background in forestry, said he typically gets about 60 percent of his wood for the winter from dead and dying trees on the 40-acre woodlot that he manages near his home. Hophornbeam, white ash and sugar maple are the types of logs usually found in his woodpile.
This year, in an effort to save more money, he is trying to get all his wood from the property. Plumley said he begins scouting for dying trees that will become next year’s firewood before the snow is even gone from the ground each spring.
Greek customs workers end strike
ATHENS, Greece: Greek customs workers have called off a strike that caused severe fuel shortages throughout the country, after a court ruled their action illegal.
Saudi Oil, OPEC's Ire: Saudi King Abdullah wants to bring prices down to ensure long-term demand, but other OPEC ministers disagree
It happens almost like clockwork. A few days before the end of every month, marketing executives from Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's national oil company, ring up the likes of ExxonMobil (XOM) and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS), sounding them out about the oil they need and the price they would be willing to pay. The Saudis crunch the numbers, set a price, then call the global customers back to see how much they'd be willing to buy. By the 10th of the following month, customers—there are about 80 in all—are told how much crude they'll actually get.It's all part of an elaborate dance that goes on continually at OPEC's biggest producer. While the cartel may set production quotas for each member, the Saudis and a few other top suppliers frequently exceed those limits in order to meet world demand. And these days, the dance looks more like a tug-of-war, as the Saudis and their allies in the organization seek to contain crude prices while Iran and others want to keep them as high as possible. Saudi relations with OPEC "depend on where prices are; when prices are too high [the Saudis] side with consumers," says Vera de Ladoucette, senior director of consultancy Cambridge Energy Research Associates in Paris.
Southeast gas shortage squeezes small retailers
WOODSTOCK, Ga. - Ralph Sheffield's tidy gas station has stayed open around the clock for 13 years, keeping the lights on even during lonely Christmas mornings and the slow holiday season.But the streak ended last week after he went eight days without receiving gas, forcing him to close early each night. Despite the crowds that crush the station when it does have fuel, Sheffield estimates his gasoline sales will drop by 30 percent this month.
The fuel shortage that has drivers across the Southeast scrambling to fill their tanks is pinching independent stations that rely on gas sales to lure customers who also buy snacks, soda and other incidentals.
"It's a panic," Sheffield said. "And we are frustrated."
At least one analyst says major oil companies are supplying their branded stations and cutting off independent retailers. Experts say it could be weeks before the region again has a steady supply of gas.
Oil falls as US bailout talks falter
LONDON - Oil prices fell below $105 a barrel Friday on investor concern that faltering negotiations in Washington may sabotage a bailout plan to stabilize the U.S. financial system, which could curb global growth and undermine crude demand.
East Timor fights to tap vast undersea gas field
JAKARTA, Indonesia - East Timor is drawing up plans for a deep sea pipeline and petrochemicals plant to tap an estimated $90 billion in disputed underwater oil and gas, company and government officials said, in a rare opportunity for one of Asia's poorest and smallest countries to boost its economy.It is the latest move in a high-stakes battle with Australia over where the oil and gas in the Greater Sunrise field — containing about 300 million barrels of light oil and 8.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — should be processed.
Shots fired in US-Pakistan clash
The United States military says US and Afghan forces have exchanged gunfire with Pakistani troops across the border with Afghanistan.A senior US military official says a five-minute skirmish broke out after Pakistani soldiers fired warning shots near two US helicopters.
Vancouver's long commuters face problems of peak oil
The environmental costs of flying or ferrying to work—as against the vision of the Metro Vancouver Liveable Region Strategic Plan, which promotes compact communities—are obvious. Anthony Perl, the director of Simon Fraser University’s urban studies program, called the growth in supercommuting a “self-correcting problem”, as fuel costs will soon crunch the lifestyles of even the most flush among the suit-and-tie set.However, he told the Georgia Straight, the notion of flying to work in the Lower Mainland doesn’t have to die with peak oil.
“There’s two places where I think dirigibles would make good transportation,” Perl said, noting he’s touted the use of zeppelins in his newest book, Transport Revolutions (Earthscan, 2007), which he coauthored with Toronto urban consultant Richard Gilbert.
Books: Useful Advice for Building Sustainable Communities (review of Rob Hopkins' The Transition Handbook)
With the rise of oil prices, the movement for sustainability has new wind in its sails. Farmers markets make ever more sense, alternative energy networks scour the territory for small-scale solutions, and even in red states, city councils set up peak oil committees.For communities where transformational breezes are stirring, Rob Hopkins’ The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience offers useful advice.
Thomas Homer-Dixon: Unbounded uncertainty
There has been something deeply disconcerting about the negotiations of the past few days in Washington to bail out the U.S. financial system: The best and brightest of policy and economic elites have seemed out of their depth.
Governor Schweitzer's energy delusions
On August 26, Governor Brian Schweitzer delivered a rousing speech to a roaring crowd. The speech was exalted by pundits, bloggers and, of course, just about everyone here in Montana. My alarm clock is set to Montana Public Radio because it's somewhat less jarring and offensive than a blaring alarm buzzer, so I got an earful about the speech the next morning. But not once did I hear anyone provide any critical analysis of it, the closest being Montana GOP Chairman Erik Iverson calling Schweitzer a “partisan attack dog”. While I don't disagree with that, I would hardly call it analysis. So I will do it myself. Governor Schweitzer is utterly deluded about energy issues.
Strategies for the Energy Crisis (interview with BP's chief scientist, Steven Koonin)
I'm optimistic about security of supply. I see many sources for liquid hydrocarbons. I see great potential for efficiency improvements in U.S. transportation fleets. I am less optimistic about carbon dioxide emissions reductions. The world should give it its best shot, but there are so many forces aligned against it that I think it's going to be very difficult for the world to stabilize emissions, let alone stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
No relief yet on gas shortages
The Wednesday evening announcement that the Environmental Protection Agency was waiving fuel blend rules for metro-Atlanta didn't have any immediate effect on the gas shortages in Coweta.In fact, Thursday was the worst day so far for drivers seeking to fill their tanks.
Solar panels are new hot property for thieves
Tom McCalmont, who runs Regrid Power in Campbell, close to California's Silicon Valley, said that the sophistication shown by thieves suggests that industry insiders are behind many of the thefts, a suspicion bolstered by supply difficulties with new solar panels.McCalmont has experience of solar panel thefts: his own company lost $30,000-worth of panels to burglars this summer. "They knew which wires to cut, which not to cut," he said. "This showed a level of expertise that indicated that whoever did it was from the solar industry."
Tanzania Doubles Power Cuts on Technical Problems
(Bloomberg) -- Tanzania extended power cuts to 10 hours a day from five due to mechanical problems at the Songas power plant, the state-run Tanzania Electric Supply Co. said.
South Africa: Aluminium foundry sector on the decline
Eskom is considering restrictions on industry, allowing them to buy 90% of the average energy used in the previous financial year, which ended in September last year. The utility also plans to limit growth in electrical supply by 4%, to service a 6% growth in demand.Krieg says these restrictions will result in an entirely different cash flow analysis. While the aluminium industry is generally on the increase, the challenge of the energy limitations, coupled with the envisaged limit of the growth of electrical supply to 4% a year, implies a move away from primary beneficiation in the aluminium industry towards less energy intensive downstream value addition,” says Krieg.
Cambodia eyes nuclear plant for electricity
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia - Impoverished Cambodia hopes to build a nuclear power plant to meet its future energy needs and help offset its dependence on imported oil, Prime Minister Hun Sen announced Friday during the first meeting of his new Cabinet.
The Jamaican government is establishing a panel to determine the feasibility of building small-scale nuclear power plants to help solve the energy crisis.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Exhibition Proceedings
Despite the sessions on CO2 sequestration and alternative energy, the AAPG is a somewhat unreconstructed skeptic when it comes to global warming. The party line, as expressed by president Lee Billingsley, is that a human origin is 'not proven' and that taxing energy to reduce consumption will have a deleterious effect on the exploration and production effort. The AAPG is likewise doubtful that 'peak oil' is real - preferring a future of 'plateau' production lasting out through 2050 and beyond. The fly in the ointment is the possibility of runaway consumption using up these plentiful reserves before that time.
More methane plumes found in Arctic
Hundreds more methane plumes have been discovered in the Arctic raising fresh fears that the greenhouse gas is contributing to global warming.A British team of scientists found the gas, which is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, being released from the seabed to the west of the Norwegian island of Svalbard.
The findings follow the revelation earlier this week that Russian scientists have discovered vast quantities of methane being released by the melting permafrost from the seabed off Siberia.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
And...here..we...go..
I for one am grabbing a comfy chair and some buttered popcorn and watching the chaotic cluster that will no doubt unfold in the financial markets today. Grab your girl, give her a kiss and get ready for the good times...
In my mind this is good. It buys more time to find alternatives. If nothing else a severe financial "adjustment" is better than the potential ugly of a post-peak world.
Good luck and god speed.
This really puts Congress between a rock and a hard place. People are outraged.
But if the bailout doesn't pass, and things go downhill fast, those who voted against it will get the blame.
Biden is already trying to blame McCain for "standing in the way of the bailout plan."
I heard on CNBC this morning that Obama and Mccain were engaged in a yelling match after the cameras were turned off yesterday at the white house.
I hope my "chair and popcorn" comment doesn't come across like I enjoy this. Quite the opposite, I am terrified. But the fact of the matter is I cannot think of a situation that could be anymore messed up. From a historic standpoint this is interesting to watch unfold.
"chair and popcorn comment "
There are quite a few people here who have expressed that sentiment.
I don't think there is any shame in knowing you are powerless to stop something and chosing instead to simply "watch history unfold."
Me too, but I substituted the popcorn by French brandy
Mmmmmm...brandy flavored pop-corn. I guess I have my new million dollar idea for the day.
What do you mean I can't get a loan for R&D?
In the not to distant future your million dollars will buy you a loaf of bread.
Of course that's better then no bread at all.
A little ode to the times we live in... 'It's the end of the world as we know it', REM
That's great, it starts with an earthquake.
Birds and snakes, an aeroplane and Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn.
World serves its own needs, don't misserve your own needs.
Feed it up a knock, grunt, no, strength, no,
Ladder structure to clatter with fear fight down height.
Fire in a wire, representing seven games.
A government for hire and a combat site.
Left of west and coming in a hurry,
With the furies breathing down your neck.
Team by team reporters baffled, trumped, tethered cropped.
Look at that low plane! Fine, then.
Uh oh, overflow, population, common food, but it'll do.
Save yourself, serve yourself, world serves its own needs.
Listen to your heart bleed tell me with the rapture.
And the revered and the right, right.
You vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight,
Bright light, feeling pretty psyched.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
But I feel fine...
Damn, I never realized how far off we were back when we were gigging. I sat down with headphones and guessed...badly.
Not to worry, Prof, it happens to the best of us. The audience probably didn't know the difference, either. 8^)
Those who invested billions in bad business ventures and are nearly bankrupt need to borrow more money to pay their creditors. In dismay they find their credit is no longer good and no one will lend them money. They go to the president and complain about a liquidity crisis. If you do not help us they continue, ...the economy will go down.
WAMU" failed. The Feds take it and they will reopen within a few days for depositors to get to their Federally insured accounts (FDIC). If it is like what happened in 1989 with the RTC the corporation will manage the assets until the collateral behind foreclosed loans can be auctioned off. I recall most of the property was disposed of within a couple of years. There was not a bailout for evey investment bank, or corporation that was not FDIC insured. It would be better to give everyone 2300 dollars than to give it to CEO's and management that committed such a dihonorable business practice as to lose 100's of billions of good money on real estate speculation.
Those with immaculate credit ratings and friends find no liquidity crisis.
Those who have not maxed out their credit cards find they have liquidity if they can afford high interest rates.
Those not on margin might get money at 10% from their brokers if they have stocks as collateral.
Good set of links. You put the pieces together nicely.
Nah, you should be looking at a popcorn flavoured alcohol concoction instead. With the rise of the alcopops I can see that doing much bigger business in the youth market.
Plus the popcorn flavour they spray on normal popcorn to actually give it a flavour is readily available - so R&D is getting some, mixing with a vodka type base, some caramel colouring and trademarking quickly.
Tequila, here.
You are never powerless unless you decide you are.
The things you fear are undefeatable, not by their nature but by your approach.
You'll laugh if you figure out who said that.
Okay, who said it?
And, who said this one? (edit - paraphrase)
"Godz grant me the power to change what I can, and ability to cope with the what I can't, and the ability to distinguish between the two so I don't waste time and energy chasing delusions"
Jewel the singer, but it sounds like Ghengis Khan or some other great warrior.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
(The Serenity Prayer is generally thought to have been written by Reinhold Niebuhr)
Your quote was a version of the serenity prayer.
matt
hello medic.
you have been away a while. Drilling in Silver Seas? Seen any flying fish yet?
Starter for ten - who said this?
'Lord, If I forget thee this day, do not forget me.'
twas the thief on his right....Jesus's right
Sir Jacob Astley of England before he led his troops into battle in 1642: "Oh Lord! Thou knowest how busy I must be this day. If I forget Thee, do not Thou forget me."
later folded into a song before battle.........
often (wrongly) attributed to Cromwell...
St. Francis.
No, I'm wrong. You should have quoted the whole thing.
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and the means to hide the bodies of my enemies.
Now work 'incorrigible' into that musashi and you got it nailed.
Now that I'd love to see. I'd heard it was McCain yelling at Bush. Which I could easily imagine. Obama yelling at McCain... that I find hard to picture.
Really? I've never known any megalomaniacs that couldn't be incited to anger quite readily, and most show restraint only as it suits their purposes.
degar7, let's hope they don't "solve" the problem with a little diversionary action against Iran, or you will be proven to be too optimistic.
No reason to not despair.
I think this demotivator is a better reflection of today's news:
http://despair.com/changewinds.html
Or this one adresses how Congress is handling things...
People are outraged. I'm visiting my mother here in Temple, Texas (just a few miles south of Bush's ranch) and this morning the local newspaper had a front page article saying the local Representative Carter's office has been inundated with calls--the vast majority opposed to the bailout. This seems to be pretty consistent with reports I've seen on TV from across the nation. Another poll I saw said 78% are in favor of a bailout, but not this bailout. They want a trickle up bailout, not the trickle down bailout proposed by the administration. But one thing is sure, this is an extremely salient issue with many voters.
So has Obama flunked political entrepreneurship 101, as the NYT alleged in an editorial yesterday?
And that populist voice that carried Obama to such stunning victories in the primary? Has it been forever sacrificed on the altar of campaign donations from an all-powerful banking industry?
And what about the 80% of Americans who aren’t upside down on a mortgage, who can still pay their bills, and who don’t see the logic in turning the country’s purse strings over to the 20% who can’t? Which presidential candidate speaks for them?
Apparently neither.
So there exists a great opportunity to make political hay with the vast majority of Americans. And yet from Obama we hear nothing. Has he abandoned us? Should we be reaching for the tar bucket and feathers?
Well maybe not. At least not yet.
I say this because, if we take a look at Franklin Delano Roosevelt the first time he ran for president, he was also a far cry from being the champion of the rank and file—from being the president that captures the popular imagination today. It wasn’t until some years later, upon accepting the nomination in 1936, that he would stridently declare: “I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.”
In 1932 when Roosevelt ran for president the first time we see an America in much more dire straits than what we see today. Three years had passed since the collapse of Wall Street, since Black Friday, and the depression had had time to work its way down into every nick and cranny of American business and life. In that year Roosevelt would form his “brains trust,” a group of university professors to gather ideas and help him formulate his programs. But, as Frederick Lewis Allen tells us,
So what happened in those four years between 1932 and 1936 to change Roosevelt so much? I think there are two things. To begin with, Roosevelt’s first response to the economic crisis was to institute a program in which Wall Street and Main Street were to self-police themselves in order to rein in some of their worst abuses. This didn’t work. It has never worked. As Allen goes on to explain:
The situation with Wall Street was even worse. Lewis continues:
The second thing that happened in the 1930s was the evolution of a radical populist left. This drove Roosevelt further leftward than what he normally might have gone. The most memorable of these was Huey Long, the Kingfish of Louisiana, with his ringing criticism of Roosevelt and his cries to “Share Our Wealth.” He was joined by Father Coughlin, Dr. Francis E. Townsend, Upton Sinclair, Governor Floyd Olson of Minnesota and the farmer-labor movement that coalesced behind him, as well as the communists: “few in number compared with these other groups,” as Lewis explains, “but the influence of their scattered agents in provoking labor disputes and offering aggressive labor leadership was disproportionately great…”
Great leaders are forged in the crucible of great turmoil. And Roosevelt certainly lived up to the challenge. As Lewis elaborates:
When I look at the historical precedents from the 1930s, I see three hurdles that modern-day advocates for the rank and file, in order to be successful, must overcome:
1) They must elect friends and allies in the House and the Senate from safe, left-leaning districts and states who are not afraid to drag the titans of finance and business onto the carpet and ask them the tough questions.
2) They must find some form of communication of disseminating their message that is not so heavily biased toward the interests of business and finance, and
3) They must nurture and encourage a rebirth of the radical populist left. I’m very much a centrist, and hope that the center holds. But the threat to the center today comes not from the left, but from the right. And the radical populist right, its latest incarnation taking the form of Sarah Palin, is very much alive and well. On the other hand, the radical populist left, after eighty years of inexorable bashing by right-wing punditry, has almost disappeared from the political landscape.
The chore of saving ourselves, therefore, falls upon ourselves. If we think we have found in Obama our savior, we are soon to be very disappointed.
No, no, & no. Read what he said in the article I linked to below:
He's calling the appearance of McCain and Obama what it is, political theater, as I posted below. (That's not to say that this comment isn't calculated to be political theater either, he's trying to paint McCain as an insincere showboat.) It looks to me like he doesn't want to make a decision about this bail-out until he figures out which way the wind it blowing with popular opinion with respect to the compromise plan. This appears to be Obama's MO: responses are measured and calculated until he figures out what he wants to do.
Don't kid yourself. FDR was an upstate NY patroon loaded with old money; what he did was only what he had to do to save capitalism. And the irony is that the very people whose power and influence he saved still detest him, to this day.
FDR saved capitalism.
FDR sowed the seeds of unfettered growth of gov't, massive social programs, and heavy-handed controls that have led to many of the problems we now see.
It's not that emergency measures weren't called for, and restructuring necessary, but these should have been short-term not perpetual programs that set forth a model for never-sunsetted growth of bureaucratic largess ever since.
This statement seems to be in lockstep with the Chicago School of Economics that came to flower 25 years ago during the Gipper's residence in the W.H. This slavish belief in the wisdom of the markets is like a cult following.
Perhaps it's time for a de-programming.
Actually, "big government" and the "regulatory era" were both ushered in at the behest of Big Business during Teddy Roosevelt's and Taft's administrations at the begining to middle of the so-called "Progressive Era." Please read the seminal work by Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism.
It is funny how much blind faith we each have in our views, and how little perspective we can actually muster. I must assume the same is true of myself, a rationalizing creature more than a rational one.
However, I must argue that basic laws of supply and demand function regardless of whether they are employed within capitalist or fascist or communist frameworks.
Since the 40's we have developed many "worst of both worlds" mechanisms -- unfettered credit and lax controls for businesses, and responsibility-sapping social supports for businesses and individuals alike.
Cheap loans to those who can't afford them, bloated social spending rife with corruption, unfettered growth of medical procedures and expenses, and massive personal debt certainly contributes to the current problems.
High-margin investment, incredible risk tolerance for financial firms, ratings agencies that are cheerleaders and lagging indicators at best, and regulatory agencies that have completely abdicated their responsibilities are much of the rest.
When two groups take opposing entities, you know that both can't be right, but really there is every chance that both are wrong.
But on the good side, it does take true-believers to generate the zeal to actually dig through data, argue positions, and generate change.
"It is funny how much blind faith we each have in our views, and how little perspective we can actually muster. I must assume the same is true of myself, a rationalizing creature more than a rational one."
In my opinion your comments about FDR were spot on. It's very concerning to see how unpopular this view is, those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it and all that.
I hope I'm wrong, I really really do.
Technological developments drive change in the economy. FDR didn't invent the technology, nor did he guide its application. Like all politicians he reacted. Some react rather well, such as FDR. Others like the paleocons now in power in the US are incompetent.
There is good reason to conclude that the welfare state, a state in which welfare spending is the largest public expenditure, is the optimal mode of organization for the capitalist model generally. Perhaps that is why most citizens of social democratic states in the OECD have lived a higher quality life for the past generation than most Americans, if we take time spent on the beach in exotic locales with full pay and health insurance as a typical indicator of a high quality life. Or we could take freedom from government intrusion as another.
Now we are in a period of adaptation to the increased competition for the declining stocks of low entropy. States aren't going to instantly vanish because of this. My bet is that those states which most ably express the feminine attributes of mutual aid and cooperation will continue to provide the best quality of life for the greatest number of their citizens. Air freighted holidays will give way to local r & r, but the current pattern of who gets the most time to live well while not working will probably remain in place.
Iam calling grammy & Pap and tell them you said too return that social security check, the false teeth also. Iam calling the fireman & police and telling them they are a bunch of socialist comunists because its a social program that pays them. When I see GWB and every senator and congressman the entire judiciary, mayors, govenors, all military and explain how their entire system is socialised...WELL darn it Wally...gosh and gee whiz Beaver..I didnt know it was all like that!
How did it come to the point where people rail agaisnt their own best intrests? Take for example the fact that GWB was born on social health care, as were his daughters, as was Bush #1 all the way back too Prescott Bush. The entire government gets social health care and always has. But its no good for Joe brown bag it to work? Try taking social medicine from the DC elite and listen to em scream bloody murder!
Theyve got Joe six pack convinced its a commie plot while the politicians get free social healthcare "AND FREE PARKING" too boot!
To borrow a phrase from the vietnam era he destroyed it in order to save it.
Since we live in an age when academic Marxist political correctness rides high and calls on us to revolve the whole world around the reckless and feckless, nobody dares to speak for the 80%. If you're among the 80%, you're on your own and God help you.
More Rovian logic-Karl Marx is responsible for the behaviour of guys like Paulson and Bush.
Vote Nader.
The NYT has a piece on it asking why it is that McCain announced he was suspending his campaign with fanfare to go back and work on the bailout and when he shows up:
He sure is accomplishing a lot by suspending that campaign! I think this is political theater on his part because bad economies favor democrats in general so he's trying to create the impression that he's competent economically. I think he's also in a bad situation. Which side of the Republican party does he go with? The president's side, or the rank and file side?
I also think it's interesting that earlier this week Boehner was calling on everyone to support the presidents plan, and now he's leading the opposition to the compromise bill. What's wrong with this picture? The compromise bill is surely more palatable to anyone except the wall street people because it gives a much better chance to recoup tax payer losses, why would he reverse? I suspect the rank and file revolted against him.
--until the supporting infrastructure collapses from underneath.
______________________________
To be a drama queen or not to be, that is the question
Let us suspend judgment until we desuspend it
Alas poor McYorrick, ....... I knew him well
Here is my Senator McCain's position (he supports a modified bailout of the Wall Street Titans) as of last Thursday:
Aiming for long-term economic growth shows how clueless he is about the economic ramifications of peak oil. Other than that and thinking the bailout is necessary (he flipped his position), his vague objectives are decent. How they translate into detailed actions is yet to be determined.
I can't tell if this is funny or sad. Each party and even individuals are taking turns claiming credit for the 'bailout' or opposing it. Sometimes on the same day. The democrats tried to get a deal done before McCain got there, then the republicans scuttled it in the WH?
Just what in the hell is going on?
What worries me is they will come up with a grand deal and will vote on it before anyone really has a chance to review it. I was going to wait until a deal was done to write my congresspeople again but we might not get the chance.
edit: But after yesterday, I'm almost hoping the whole thing degerates into partisan bickering and nothing gets done. I know, I know, it's hardly ever happened before, but there's a first time for everything...
It's times like this, I wish I was a Senator. Can you imagine how much money you could get by balking at this deal until they throw you a bone?
It's disgusting to watch all these vermin playing CYA, especially the Dems. They're willing to roll over and play dead for this power grab, as long as the Repubs do it too. I personally despise the principles of the Repub cabal from the House who monkeywrenched the deal, but by God I do admire 'em for stickin' to their guns and standing by their principles. The only principle I can detect being held by the Dems is an obsessive desire to win.
A plague on all their houses.
I'm surprised that it was the Republicans who seem to have stalled or perhaps scuttled this bailout. The Democrats look like rudderless lemmings. How on earth can they get in bed with Bush and Paulson on this horrible plan?!?! I'm aghast and disappointed. It does NOT bode well for how a strong Democratic majority would govern congress.
It might make some people feel better about an Obama presidency (i.e. the very wealthy)-obviously for all his "change" rhetoric it looks like he just aspires to becoming Bill Clinton (maybe even a junior level Hank Paulson).
When was the last time you saw a Democrat oppose a handout? Note that it's the House Republicans who are revolting, not the Senate. A Representative gets a lot less money from the big boys and I think they are scared they won't win if they vote for this bill. The House term is two years. These are the guys who are afraid for their political lives. There is no time between now and November 4th for damage control. I'll wager that a lot of calls, emails and faxes coming in make it clear that a vote for the bailout is a lost vote from a constituent. Senators are only elected each six years so their situation is quite different.
This is a free market issue and, unsurpisingly, it's the Republicans with their "invisible hand" beliefs who feel obliged to stand up against a government bailout of Wall Street. There's no way this situation won't get politicized.
Next shoe to drop will be the Democrat Reps getting the same message. A vote for this bailout could cost a lot of seats. That's why Pelosi isn't about to bring it to a vote without SIGNIFICANT Republican support. She's smart enough to see what a mine field this is.
This whole deal smells like a dead mackerel to me. I don't think Paulsonstein and BerBankie can pull it off.
They are indeed revolting. Before you get all weepy-eyed, consider the political angle. Obama and the D's have just jumped on board a very unpopular bit of legislation, so the R's get to pose as the great populist defenders. If the R's play it right it may well win them the White House. There is nothing noble happening here, just BAU political games.
LJR, it is not that simple. This is not a choice between good and evil, it is a choice between the lesser evil or the greater evil.
What might happen if there is NO bailout? Credit will dry up completely. No one will be able to buy a house unless they have at least 20% or more to pay down. Cars will become increasingly hard to buy unless you can pay cash. Millions will be laid off in the housing industry and in the automotive industry and all the industries that service these two industries. Then there is every other large purchase that people buy on credit. That will dry up as well. And the millions who lose their jobs because of the credit crunch will buy nothing. This will lead to more layoffs.
It could very well lead to another great depression. But there is no guarantee that this will not happen anyway, or no guarantee that no bailout will cause it to happen either. But it does make it far more likely.
We are in very dangerous territory here and I am not sure which is the correct path to take. But to scream "no bailout" with the assumption that only Wall Street will benefit from a bailout is just stupid. We are all at risk here. The economy could collapse here and every action should be weighed carefully without resorting to silly sound byte criticisms.
Ron Patterson
I think we should do something...just not this.
Leanan - I think this problem is so large that this bailout is like taking a glass of water, putting your finger in and then slowly removing it.
Did you notice the difference? I didn't but I need glasses.
Joe
The immediate use of the bailout funds, as I understand it, is to the to buy this toxic debt so as to get it off the "books".
Isn't this the toxic Level 3 crap we hear about?
So, why not Denninger's 3 step suggestion plus what I recall some bankers proposing (sorry no reference) of amortizing the write downs...
Get all the Level 3 asset owners together and price the assets. Put them on the balance sheet, write them down, but amortize the writedown over 5, 7, 10 years?
Would take one-time accounting rule change.
Why does hard money have to be spent to solve what appears to be a valuation and accoutnign problem?
I patiently await my bashing...
Pete
Sounds good, but we'd have to tolerate banks with negative valuations for the foreseeable future.
We don't have a liquidity crisis any more - we have a solvency crisis. That's what's panicking the sector: Given the leveraging of 20 or 30:1, a drop of just 10% in those unvalued assets would mean that the players are insolvent.
We're way past 10% decline in some asset classes - so an honest appraisal would inevitably result in mass bankruptcies - then it's Game Over.
I'm rightly afraid of entering uncharted financial territory - Will we all live hand-to-mouth, swapping old shoes for beans and bullets? But prolonging the crisis a) has made it worse, and b) is no longer tenable. We have to take our medicine some time - let's get it over with - elsewise the patient will die.
Valuing the toxic mortgage backed securities at less than their original worth would trigger a cascade of credit default swaps bankrupting the insurance companies and removing the default protection for everything in the financial sector increasing risk and tightening credit. Paulson must purchase the toxic securities at or very close to 100% value to prevent a financial collapse. He could then sell them for what they are really worth making the tax payers lose the difference.
Leanan,
With just a few minor changes in the wording I believe these comments are similar to the ones used on the Titanic
after it hit the iceberg!!!
Spooky!!!!
DD
Attention cruise members and guests,
tonight's midnight comedy show is "suspended" until further notice.
However, the band will play on.
Dont Just Do Something, Stand There!.
Noooo, YOU are at risk here. I am not. The many millions in this country who do NOT have their head up their ass, work the market every day on their playstation trader software, and only talk about what in it for "them", are telling the washington traitors to go to hell. Come down from your high horse and live a responsible life. You, and the world will be a much better place if they do nothing and let the chips fall. The over extended, Monopoly Money that has been used for soo long needs to be put to the PTB where the "sun don't shine". Re-read the Constitution, then think of what is really going on in your government.
Darwinian-
The root of this problem is TOO MUCH DEBT. I've noticed that many defenders of the bailout bemoan the possible tightening of credit if nothing is done. The doomsday scenario which you lay out:
- Requiring 20% down for a home purchase, or
- Requiring cash to buy a car,
is just plain frugal living to which many in this country still subscribe. If these tenets were more widely observed we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
Unfortunately for you and me, money is debt.
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
More to the point, money is a promise.
Broken promises lead to a broken monetary system.
The bailout proposed by Paulson & Bernanke is a piece of crap designed to bail out Paulson's buddies at GS & MS. It signs up Americans for an open-ended commitment to bail out the entire world's banking system, while completely gutting Constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances, and any number of other things that are (or used to be) core to American values.
The problem with tackling this monstrosity point-by-point is that the Bush administration will simply slap a little lipstick on the pig and get it passed. The bill needs to be completely scrapped and something sensible put in its place. The Swedes had a banking collapse after a housing bust, and they had a sensible response. The problem is that it involved some "tough love" for the banks. That is a non-starter for Bush/Paulson/Bernanke, so they've rebuffed the Swedish efforts to advise us.
Right now the Bush administration is trying to pull off what is nothing less than an economic coup d'etat. The Congress would happily roll over and give it to him, except that this is an election year. The only hope the American people have of getting a decent and effective bailout is to make Congress more afraid of the people than they are of Bush.
I agree the stakes are high. But I think we're going to have a depression anyway. The question is will it be one in which we have any liberties left, or will it be a fascistic corporatist system run at the pleasure of a small group of people in Washington?
I think it makes sense to make the starting point one of "no bailout", and then compromise from then once something sensible is put on the table. Besides, a lot rides on the definition of a bailout. Was the RTC a bailout? I don't think so, since the banks were actually taken over by the RTC. A reasonable definition of "bailout" is something that gets the banks out of trouble entirely at the public expense. By that definition, a bailout is something that benefits only Wall Street, and it does not presume that we will do nothing to help the credit markets.
Let's see...
The housing industry and the automobile industry are already in the tank, and jobs are being shed like crazy. So it gets a bit worse. This is a crisis? We have far more housing than we have people to occupy it - it has to slow down. Until auto makers start producing cars that make sense in a oil-short world, we should buy very few of them.
OF COURSE you shouldn't buy a home without 20% (or more down). OF COURSE you should pay cash for a car. Removing easy credit is a very healthy thing for the economy. We used to be a nation of savers. We can be again. But you have to take the punchbowl away or people will never sober up. We are going to need vast sums of capital to rebuild the infrastructure of this country from the ground up, and it can't all be borrowed from abroad.
Is it a coincidence that this "crisis" has emerged just as McCain's convention bounce dissipates and it becomes clear that there is no possibility whatsoever of a Republican victory? Call me skeptical.
I don't see any crisis here that can't wait 100 days for the Obama administration to tackle. That also gives his team time to come up with a thoughtful plan that might actually provide a net benefit.
We are going to have a recession (you know, the one that started a year ago). As oil production drops off, the recession will worsen. This is going to be a century-long grind to whatever the new post-fossil-fuel economy will look like.
The last few bailouts didn't fix the problem. This one won't fix it. All it will do is piss away immense sums of money that could be and should be better spent elsewhere. Which is the whole point, of course. This is Shock Doctrine Disaster Capitalism. Now that it is clear to anyone paying attention that the Republican party will be out of power for a generation or two, they are trying one last hail Mary pass to hopelessly bankrupt the government to prevent the Democrats from solidifying their hold on power.
I hope that negotiations stay stalled until January. Conveniently, there is an election a few days from now. Let the People speak. Democracy is a lousy system, but it's just better than the alternatives. Remember that old TV show "Nanny and the Professor"? Her signature line was "We must have faith in the rightness of things".
We are about to awake from our generation-long nightmare of free-market fundamentalism and remember that together we are strong.
"All it will do is piss away immense sums of money that could be and should be better spent elsewhere."
Indeed. $700 billion buys a lot of nuclear power plants. A lot of solar thermal plants, a lot of wind turbines, a lot of light rail and bike paths. These are things I'd much rather the gov owned than shares in insolvent banks (assuming the plan includes equity warrants).
Green-
You sound a lot like I would've several years ago. Though even then I hope I'd have tempered things like this a bit: no possibility whatsoever of a Republican victory.... the Republican party will be out of power for a generation or two.
I hope I'm wrong, but after having read and seen a lot these past few years, starting with "Orwell Rolls in his Grave", and including, "America, Freedom to Fascism", and, yes, writings by Mike Ruppert, Dale Allen Pfeiffer (check out some of the short videos on his site, The Mountain Sentinel) Mark Crispin Miller and a host of others, including RFK Jr., I'm not at all certain that we should be looking to our political system for any sort of fix. For two reasons. First, fixed is about all our 'democracy' seems to be these days, from corporate ownership of the media through black-box voting right down to voter roll purges and bullying at polling places. Second, insofar as we have a choice and a voice (which I doubt any longer) the two parties are so closely aligned with the corporatocracy that only BAU has any real representation.
Sorry, guess I've got my cynical hat on today,
clif-
Exactly what Ralph Nader said on the Bill Maher show (HBO) tonight:
"You want to know who won the debate today? The corporate-ocracy did."
___________________
or something to that effect
Good!!! That's how it used to be, that's how it ought to be, and we wouldn't be discussing this if it had stayed that way. That you consider down payments an unthinkable imposition only serves as fresh illustration of the pervasiveness of today's richly ludicrous overweening sense of limitless entitlement.
The way we got into this mess was to strew handouts far and wide, rather than demand that (all but a very few) people live within their means, something which seems to be anathema even to some posters here, who should know better. And, naturally, a raft of enablers were delighted to become obscenely rich off the handout schemes, which include liar loans, interest-only mortgages, and discriminatory tax deductions. And just as naturally, a raft of Congresscritters were delighted to look like heroes fighting for palaces for the "common man", when their real delight lay in raking in lavish "campaign contributions" from the enablers, and in social climbing at lavish parties thrown by the enablers.
And then, oops, what a shock - it became clear yet again for the umpteenth time that there are few free rides in the real world; only in our useless "schools" do you get A's and goodies because you're entitled to them in the name of your bloated "self esteem". About being smarter than yeast... bah! A plague on all their houses!
Yeah, we may be stuck with some kind of bailout, but this turkey ain't it. And no matter how it turns out, a good many in the vastly overbloated and overpowerful house-building "industry" are redundant and have been so all along, and they will finally have to hit the bricks and find other lines of work. Easy come, easy go, so what?
Maybe we could ease the pain by employing some of them for a while at dividing up McMansions into quad-plexes, with any zoning laws that get in the way annulled by Federal override. Maybe we could employ some more at 'mothballing' judiciously-chosen McMansions until more housing is needed again, which will certainly happen in due time since there is no political will to limit population or immigration.
Part of the reason for the 20% down payment was to provide a bit of a buffer in case housing prices did decline a bit, thus reducing the probability of the buyer going underwater and giving up. Industries of all types used to have inventories for the same reason - to buffer the supply chain from supply distruptions, so that they didn't have to immediately shut down just because a shipment was delayed.
I am sure that the engineers on the board could expound at length on the benefits of buffering in all types of different systems. Biologists and ecologists could also speak extensively on the many types of natural buffering that exist. We see buffering in nature because nature exists in the real world, and the real world is chaotic. IMHO, I very much doubt that life could exist without buffering in certain key systems.
The high flying "Masters of the Universe" thought they were so very clever, and could control things to such a precise degree that buffering was just a waste that could be dispensed with. Well, now we've seen how that turned out.
JIT--> Just Isn't There!
When JIT was first imported (supposedly from the Japanese I seem to recall being lectured by some "consultant") it started with the largest companies. Their suppliers were asked to provide JIT deliveries but internally that just meant the supplier held the stock for longer - the buffer was still present, but had just dropped out of the customer's inventory (the financial reason for JIT). JIT wasn't seen by management as the danger it could become because if problems occurred and the customer at the top of the chain demanded extra supply it was probably there. As time passed, JIT worked its way (or was forced) down the supply chain all the way to the very smallest widget manufacturer; and so did the buffer - until it just wasn't there.
It is important to note that this binge of credit is not causeless, but has originated in specific legislation, rewarding heavy mortgaging by making it tax-deductible, and encouraging the credit card society by allowing banks to use personal data to form risk profiles whilst the lack of usury laws in the Anglo-Saxon countries allow huge interest rates on sub-prime loans.
The situation in France is very different:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7635327.stm
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | French hold out against credit crunch
This does not mean that France will be unaffected by world wide financial conditions, far from it, but it is far less exposed than most countries and appears to be much better placed in this respect than almost anywhere else, just as it is in energy security courtesy of it's state-directed long term commitment to nuclear power, and to the provision of urban transport apart from the car.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding, give DaveMart the prize. And it was immensely popular because it awarded many tens of millions of people lots more stuff they could never have earned for themselves in a billion years.
That popularity is the root of the problem, because it ensures that any bailout will be a turkey that only makes the problem worse:
There are a lot of regulatory issues that cause pain. Deductible interest and low down payments help people buy way too large a house. Rarely do utilities and taxes get factored into loan ratio discussions. There is value in having people settle into a house or condo and be part of a stable community, and tax policy of course affects that.
A better plan would be to have tax benefits that are limited or kick-in after some number of years. The goal should be to promote short mortgages and equity.
My accountant grimaces every time I pay off a mortgage and incur more taxes, but having equity makes me sleep better.
The way we got into this mess was by maximizing profits, by giving in to corporate greed and by outsourcing the core industries of this country to them that don't need us very much anymore.
The problem is not that of extending credit, but rather that of withdrawing jobs from those who need to pay their mortgages.
The world is not "flat". (Sorry Tom Tom.) It's a circle that must and does run through Main Street. Take away the Mom & Pop jobs from Main Street and eventually that greedy snake maneuver will come around to bite you in your "new economy" backside. It just has.
Sound byte: Those that support the bailout may still believe in trickle down theory . I believe that new (more society beneficial) industries need to begin from the ground up, replacing the corrupt/soon obsolete automotive, housing and banking sectors.
The 700b would go, for the most part, to the primary dealers, some of which are foreign owned.
The bankers would take that money and run, it would not change a single thing in the markets, other then buy a little time.
You need a lot more than 20% for a downpayment if credit dries up. You need 100% unless you can find a rich friend or relative to loan you money. If credit becomes difficult (as it is) home prices start tumbling as buyers can't get credit to buy them. This sets up a feedback loop because no bank\lender wants to lend money for an asset that is falling in value. The value of the asset is watch secures the loan if you default. If you default the bank can sell the asset to get back its money.
Currently the only real lender are the GSEs (Freddie and Fanny even though they are in gov't recievership). Virtually all mortgages are financed through the GSEs because few banks\lenders are stupid enough to loan money on falling home prices. Lenders are also cutting back on other lending such as auto loans and even corporate financing for operations. Today Pilgram's Pride (a large meat processing company) can't get credit to finance its operations and may have to slow production or shutdown altogether.
FWIW: Only a very tiny amount of the American population is secure from a credit crunch. Even if you have no debt, your job is probably depend on the availability of credit. Without credit Gas stations run dry and food shelves go bare. Yup thats right your fuel and food distribution system is dependant on Credit to function. Few people understand how much danger we are really in. A bailout of 700 Billion probably buy six to eight months before another big credit infusion is required.
Did you realize what you wrote at the end???
Bingo! That's exactly why this thing is a turkey. All it buys is a few months' postponement of the inevitable. And each future tranche will buy even less. Either we take our hard lumps now (which may not mean NO bailout, but would at least mean a smaller bailout bearing very harshly on all the irresponsible parties) and recognize the politically incorrect fact that there is no something-for-nothing, or we keep throwing ever-escalating trillions of good money after bad until we find ourselves in New Zimbabwe later, taking fatal lumps with no good money left. But alas, the election is now.
IMO the bind is that one thing really is 'different this time': it's no longer possible to inflate our way out. The fuel system may function on credit, but if the dollar is inflated into oblivion, the fuel system will be a mess anyhow because the suppliers are now primarily overseas, so there's no way to force them to take worthless (virtual) paper if they refuse it, as we were able to do with price controls on domestic suppliers the last time around.
The time simply seems to be at hand when Americans are going to have to live within their means, as harsh and old-fashioned and offensive as that seems, especially to young people who have never heard of such a concept.
Ron,
In all sincerity, I would like to know when you get more of a sense of what your idea for what is "the correct path." (i.e., I'd like to know what your ideas might be.)
The stock market will crash like it began to do last week before the government temporarily stopped it by banning the short selling of shares of selected financial companies and proposing the $700 billion bailout. Credit will tighten, insolvent banks and insurance companies will bankrupt, unemployment will rise and we will enter a depression. Hyperinflation of the dollar and consumer prices will probably not occur. With the bailout, all of the above will likely occur farther in the future when peak oil will have a stronger negative grip on our economy. It is a matter of taking our bitter medicine now or later after the sickness has worsened.
Look, the Democrats have gotten out of Bush the three things they wanted: A) caps on executive salaries, B) Companies looking for a loan need to give up an equity-stake to the government, and C) oversight. The details are missing of course, but at this point the Paulson plan as he first proposed it is dead. Obviously we can't tell if these are token concessions by Bush etc. or if they're serious, but it doesn't look like the Democrats have caved, they got exactly what they wanted. The alternative plan proposed by the Republicans is a joke, it's just more tax cuts for rich people.
This is one of the few times the Democrats have successfully managed to change the course of Bush and created something that might actually work and not cost the tax payer a huge amount in the end (because of the equity stake).
I'm sorry but "concessions" are still just lipstick on a pig. I called my congressmen and told them I don't concessions I want the ugly piece of legislation KILLED. The bailout is still a pig.
It WILL cost the taxpayer more in the end because it simply won't work. All this does in possibly postpone the real valuation of what is trash and what is of moderate value that is hidden behind these failed mega banks. Let the truth come out. It will eventually anyway and like a constipated elephant, the resulting purge only gets worse the longer we wait.
I think the fact Bush made those concessions is a sign that it's a bad plan. He wants it bad, and he is a man who said that the rich were his constituents. And I think the fact that the Democrats can't conceive of even measures as radical as those signed by FDR is proof that America is to the Right of where it was in 1932 in its belief that the rich are a master race whom the rest of us are utterly dependent on. The fight over this bill might as well be occurring in Medieval Europe, with the king and the moneychangers on one side, the local barons on the other, and the peasants powerless on the sidelines.
As for part "C" I think we can expect a secret presidential signing statement to the effect of:
Sure...but a signing statement or two could probably negate any protections they think they have gained.
Gwydion - I think any notion that there will be partisan winners and losers in this is just plain wrong. This $700 billion is the tip of the iceberg. Barrack Obama or John McCain administrations will matter very little in the wake of this financial tsunami. The fallout from this collapse will leave whatever party is in control of the White House lurching from disaster to disaster. It's hard to influence a sea-change when you're broke.
The financial sector of the economy over the last 30 years, with the active complicity of the political PTB, grew this Blob. Who allowed investment margins of 1 to 30? Placing blame will replace baseball as the new national past-time.
I don't think a year from now Energy Independence or Peak Oil will be a large part of the political conversation.
Where did all of my money go to? will be the topic du-jour.
Joe
I'm very much with Gwydion. I'm not an economist myself, but I am intellectually humble enough to take their advice, we need some sort of intervention, and we will need it soon. Of course we need major oversight, of those proposing, and implementing any such plan. It looks to me like the Democrats are doing the responsible thing, modifying the plan. Bush and company are sufficiently desperate to accept modifications, as saving the economy has to be priority number one, priority number two, taxpayer funded bonanza for fat cats, (which was in the original Paulson proposal), has been sacrificed. The Republicans are working from the crazy Eddy plan, when you got nothing to lose, try something insanely crazy, and hope it works out. Everyone has their own ideas about the plan they'd like, but some have spent decades doing research and writing papers about what to do in a situation like today. It is foolish to overrule them by jumping onto a plan hatched up by some amateur economists acting under emotional stress. The truth is we don't have the time for unlimited analysis and arguing over this thing. A weeks delay might be OK, but every day that we put off the final package increases the odds of yet more piecemeal bailouts (like BS, AIG etc.). IMO a big plan now, will be less expensive than a series of small bailouts, as crises are dealt with one by one.
Of course we do need to change our national psyche. Twenty percent downpayments for houses are sensible. My current house the downpayment was over 50%. In a few weeks I will have to call the mortgage company to make final arrangements, as I am a single payment away from having it paid off. But that doesn't mean that instant cold turkey is the optimal to get the patient cured. Its going to take a few years to get the economy unaddicted to excessive debt. Trying to do it overnight will create a lot of collateral damage. A lot of that collateral damage will be to people were had been prudent.
Most of the collateral damage will be to those who only wish they had been more prudent. I'm not world's wisest man, but so far my family is doing quite OK through all of this.
Needing a bigger down-payment would push people into smaller, cheaper "starter" houses, like many of us chose anyway. Not only do you keep your payments down, but you tend to build equity more quickly and you can always "trade up" when conditions warrant.
I think if the "decades of research and writing papers" folks would come out and teach a bit before screaming "the sky is falling, give ME money now" they'd be a lot more believable. Did their research fail to give them visibility into the pending crisis when more time was available? If so, how solid was it really?
IMO the biggest problem with our "experts", is that so many of them allowed themselves to be misused for so long, that expertise is just considered to be so much gobblety-gook covering up a scam that most of the population discounts nearly all expert advice. Then we end up with government by the ignorant. If a problem has a non-obvious -but well understood solution, selling the solution to an expert hating public is almost impossible.
The interesting thing about this financial crisis, is that other similar crises both in this country (great depression, and saving & loan crisis), and in other countries, were not substantively attacked -until things had gotten really bad. No-one wanted to face an angry public, who don't see the screaming need for a bailout. So the medicine isn't applied, until the patient knows without a doubt that he is really sick. Bernanke, and Paulson are trying to head this crisis off before it gets that deep. Economically, I think that is the better approach, i.e. an approach that minimizes the damage. But, it has not been tried because of the political risk. If most of the population believes it has been screwed over, for no good reason, what sort of political forces will that unleash?
Still, the Paulson fix will buy time without resolving the underlying issue.
Fixing FDIC, supporting business credit needs, and improving transparency in the derivatives markets would be more substantive fixes.
I can't see how to fix the base mortgage issue, though. Until house prices get down to 2.3x of income or thereabouts, on average, I fear prices will continue to slide. Strong income growth is very unlikely. Mass gov't intervention is politically unpalatable. Home devaluation is excruciating. That leaves inflation as the dubious savior of real estate?
I think McCain is on the populist side of the bailout fallout right now, but mass displeasure will result in turnover in Congress without a lot of net change I thing.
1000 banks failing, DOW 8000, credit lockup, house devaluation of 30-50%, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, bigger gov't, and $5-$8 gas -- some or all of these are coming?
Pardon my French, but this is where the screwing and collapse of our civilization takes root, by ceding all rational thought over to so-called experts who pride themselves in practicing a "dismal" science.
The same statement can be made about almost anything:
I'm not a Big Oil man myself, but I am intellectually humble enough to take their advice ...
I'm not a politician myself, but I am intellectually humble enough to take their advice ...
I'm not a theologian myself, but I am intellectually humble enough to take their advice ...
I'm not a redneck myself, but I am intellectually humble enough to take their advice ...
____________________________________
"It's going to take a few years to get the economy unaddicted to excessive debt."
... and to cheap oil
Of course there should be much more. Caps on executive's salaries are fine, but what would be better would be a reinstatement of the progressive tax structures of the 1950s. If memory serves, the upper tax bracket was 80% or so. Also bigger percentage taxes on corporate earnings. It should be structured so that over a period of years, the crooks pay back what they have stolen.
Will this happen? Not a chance. Get out the torches and pitchforks.
Am I hearing right? The Dems are shooting arrows at the GOP for not backing Bush???
Obama and Bush on the same page? A month to go to the election and the Democrats are siding with the most unpopular (and grand nominee for worst ever) president of the United States? Is that right?
Biden is supporting a package that would give the Bush cronies unlimited power in the waning days of this administration? A package deal that almost everyone -- except for those fearless marketeers -- thinks stinks?
All so that they don't catch the muck when TSHTF?
Don't they know, TS is going to HTF anyway? Why not try a little integrity for once.
As this bizarre fiasco unravels, and the outrage explodes, I'm not sure the distinction will be easily made between the white and black hats, b/c everyone will be covered with the same brown goo.
Yuck!
Paulson's scheme could not possibly fix anything the way it was structured-it is a blatant money grab, nothing else. Politically, taking ownership of it is very stupid for Biden or anyone else IMO.
Obama is a creature of Wall Street. The opposition to the 700 B. bill is straight from any pol textbook. The hard right, or paleo right, traditional right, republicans, espouse Chicago school or ‘Austrian’ economics (even if they never heard of it) and can see the opportunism of ideologically favored populism. (No bail outs for rich losers. Rich winners are of course another matter.) After all, Paulson with his buddy-bail-out is proposing State Intervention. The central circles of power - Gvmt. in this instances, very center, with Dems, aspiring wanna-be Uber centrists, are a natural fit. McCain could win the election right now by strongly opposing the move.
It is funny-Obama profited greatly from the whole Paulson mess, then he inexplicably decided to throw his advantage away. McCain doesn't seem qualified for anything other than political opportunism, which is fantastic at.
Paulson and the administration are using the Rove playbook in the way that they frame the discussion. If we don't do the bailout, then such and such will happen. Such and such may happen no matter what is done. Don't allow these people to presume cause and effect. They don't know what they are talking about. They are intent on preserving their folks, their tribe. I quote Henry Kissingers comment on the Balkans to illustrate this mess: "whatever we do may be wrong, including nothing."
Sometimes there IS a difference between politicians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26campaign.html?_r=1&hp&or...
"Still, by nightfall, the day provided the younger and less experienced Mr. Obama an opportunity to, in effect, shift roles with Mr. McCain. For a moment, at least, it was Mr. Obama presenting himself as the old hand at consensus building, and as the real face of bipartisan politics.
“What I’ve found, and I think it was confirmed today, is that when you inject presidential politics into delicate negotiations, it’s not necessarily as helpful as it needs to be,” Mr. Obama told reporters Thursday evening. “Just because there is a lot of glare of the spotlight, there’s the potential for posturing or suspicions.”
According to one congressman the calls his office was receiving were running about 50-50.
50% no, 50% hell no.
No matter what happens, 'Things' will go downhill fast.
If the bailout becomes law, gasoline prices will skyrocket. The $700 Billion tab will be paid at the pump.
Why? Follow the bouncing $700B:
The Treasury doesn't have the cash so it has to be borrowed. From whom? China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela; the usual suspects. Why? Because, they have the money. So far, so good ... except these creditors look at America as a bad credit risk made worse, by the need for constant bailouts. So ... they want to hedge their risk and do so effectively, getting their investment 'back' as quickly as possible. Where can they do this? The oil futures market! The lenders can be repaid the $700b in that market within a year.
So ... the bailout's lenders will pile into the crude futures market with some spare change and drive the prices for their 'residues' higher and higher. If they can sell $150/bbl oil for a year, they've earned back the loaned $700b ... just in the futures market itself. They will sell more trillions of oil that are not part of the hedge. They can rationalize this because of the direct effect of the $700b loan on the value of the US dollar.
Simultaniously, the citizens of the USA will still owe the same lenders the original $700 billion! Not a good deal, eh?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the $700 billion is a 'stimulus package' in disguise; the funds will trickle down into the real economy. What will that money be spent on? More expensive gas! So ... the Saudis will win at the gas pump as well as the futures market and later, when the taxpayers have to repay the original loans.
Citizens will get hooked by high prices now and high taxes later ... or the Treasury will default.
The only country that will be able to afford the higher oil prices will be the US. China, Europe and Japan will fall into severe recessions as $150 oil is economically unsustainable for them. We will export recession to our primary trading partners and Christmas cheer to ... Hugo Chavez.
Good grief!
An alternative would be to spend $700 billion on non- fossil fuel energy infrastructure. This would work against the interests of the oil producers and benefit the country in the longer term. Fat chance of that.
If the bailout fails, the 'cheap capital; companies will fail and the recession will hit hard here. Gas prices will fall, cancelling out the higher price of credit. I think most Americans would make that trade off. We would have more wherewithal to finance alt energy and that would help restart the 'Niewe Economy'.
It's not a complete coincidence the summer peak in oil prices coincided with the last 'stimulus package'... about a fifth the size of the proposed one.
Hold onto your wallets!
It is interesting that the $700B in bailout money is exactly equal to that $700B that we are sending overseas each year to pay for our imported oil.
There are many things about engineering that I understand, and there are many things about finance as it is played at present in the U.S. that I don't understand. However, it seems to me that if we keep adding to the national debt by nationalizing the results of the bad choices of the rich, there may come a time when all Americans - including those who are not in debt and who own their own property - may be required to forfeit all their possessions to service the national debt.
This could be via a number of foreign governments demanding repayment of debt certificates issued by the U.S. government, to which the Feds would respond by raising the tax rate on anyone with hard assets (including real estate) to such an extent that no one would be able to afford the tax. Then the Government could foreclose on the personal properties of people who could not afford the tax, and turn those properties over to foreign creditors in an attempt to repay some of the national debt. Is this a farfetched scenario? I'd like to think so, because the present governmental shenanigans are rather spooky.
How about some Powell Point slides...?
C. Powell withdrew from the Repub. nomination race the day Y. Rabin was murdered. (1995.)
Sitting in front of a tapestry representing Guernica and talking BS is safer than being US Pres?
The bailout will lift oil prices. To finance the $700 billion, the Treasury will borrow overseas. The (instantly massive) exposure will be hedged in the oil markets.
The 'trickle down' of the $700 billion - which is a kind of 'stimulus package' - will also wind up in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Email your congressmen and tell them that the bailout will raise gas prices ... a lot. That's simple enough, right?
This is from yesterday. Apologies it is was already linked, but I don't remember seeing it.
In any case, it does not bode well for a variety of reasons: China banks told to halt lending to US banks.
It was discussed in yesterday's DrumBeat. Chinese officials denied the story. But they always do that.
does anyone know how fast this would take temperature beyond a tipping point, and how fast would this unravel from there on? i believe a lot of bad things will join forces, like desertification, more permafrost thawing, glaciers melting, reduced carbon absorbtion from oceans and plans. anything else that could go wrong?
what's the chance of global warming boiling our planet?
This has probably been going on since the last ice age. What isn't clear is the extent to which the process is accelerating because of global warming. The article didn't mention clathrates (or hydrates), which is good. Destabilization and release of methane clathrates is the "game over" scenario. It happened once before in the PETM, and it was ugly.
Some of us around here are old enough to remember the PETM.
Wasnt pretty. No Airconditioning , no Ice for your Gin and Tonic.
That's true. But carbonation for your soda pop was easy to come by. And if you could find a methane plume that hadn't ignited yet, you could dip your bottles in it to keep them passably cool.
I'm fairly certain they are talking about one and the same thing. The article (writer) just doesn't have a good grasp of the topic.
Cheers
An eleven minute video - with transcript - first presented September 25
Methane - The forgotten gas
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2373958.htm
Thanks RollOut for this great link. Everyone should watch it, especially Shargash who is of the opinion that this has been happening since the last ice age. It has not! The recent sudden and dramatic upturn in methane in the atmosphere can only be caused by melting permafrost and melting methane hydrates in the shallow oceans.
The current global warming trend creates a positive feedback loop as described in the film. Warming causes methane release which in turn causes more warming which in turn causes more methane release, and so on.
Darwinian, I'll check out the video when I get home. But please don't read too much into one sentence of mine. I was simply repeating what the article presented as the presumed scientific concensus
Methane release in the arctic is very bad news. Whether or not it has been going on for since the last ice age, it is critical to understand (a) to what extent it is increasing, and (2) what effect it will have on the climate, as I'm pretty sure it is not factored into the current generation of climate models.
Thank you Shargash:
The only change I would recommend is to change the first sentence to read "how much, if any" are the current vents contributing to climate change.
That would be utterly illogical. Methane entering the atmosphere, as with any GHG, affects climate change. The ONLY question is how much, not whether.
Don't twist reality to fit your agenda. It's ridiculous.
IMO, one need only look as far as the Arctic. I guarantee you methane release is going to be determined to be part of the high rise in Arctic temps and ice melt.
If the artic was warmer in 1940
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm
Why are we still here?
it gets worse.
take a look at this:-)
http://www.ecoenquirer.com/secret-industrial-waste-dumping.htm
If I conflate weather and climate, why doesn't it make sense?
If I cherry pick some data out of context, why doesn't it make sense?
"The ONLY question is how much, not whether."
2CPO, yes, first measure, second determine "whether" or not it is significant enough to make a difference.
And, I don't have an "agenda" - the Climate Change Crowd has the agenda - "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later."
Bull. You are the one twisting facts. I don't, frankly, understand why you are allowed to post when what you post is demonstrably false.
But this is not what you suggested as a re-write,now is it? What you say above is what I said. So just be quiet if you've nothing truthful or useful to say. You DO have agenda. How can you claim otherwise when your position is built upon false claims?
Why lie? CO2 warming the planet was established over a hundred years ago. It's being studied intensively, yet virtually nothing has been done about it, but you would have us believe people are shooting first and asking later? Your characterization is demonstrably false.
Jeers
I ask the staff here to do the world a favor and no longer allow denialists to post here who cannot deal with the science as it stands. I am sickened by the continual lying from these people.
CCPO it feels like you are taking a big stick and trying to beat us into assuming your point of view! We are all allowed our points of view and sometimes you just have to accept that those points of view may be (but certainly not always) biased.
You state: "It's being studied intensively, yet virtually nothing has been done about it". I'm not sure but presume there are a large proportion of people on this planet who just do not buy AGW and a just as big group who are worried more about their day to day food to mouth problems. I reckon the "denialists" - those who recognise the science but for their own political/financial gain ignore the science - account for only a very small proportion of people that are actually blocking/impairing measures to reduce CO2 emissions.
I really don't know what the answer is. What I do know is for me PO / anergy availability/price is the "here and now" problem and unless the entire Greenland iceecap dumps it's load overnight I cannot see much momentum gathering to invoke the sort of crash response required to avert possible problems on the AGW front. Howerver in studying energy depletion with a view to acting on our knowlegde could kill these 2 birds with one stone anyway.
Another angle is the fact that any politician having enacted any measures to reduce CO2 will not see any gains on their watch and I think they recognise this. They would far rather implement policies that make them popular in their own political lifetime, say 4-8 years.
Marco.
That is your own defensiveness. I never make original posts about the veracity of AGW. Why would I need to? There is no debate. You have all proven that time and again by failing to answer this one request: Show me just ONE peer-reviewed paper that has not already been debunked or proven to be in error that shows AGW is questionable. JUST ONE. I submit: you have to be a partisan dupe, not very bright or on someone's payroll to not be able to do this yet still claim an anti-AGW stance is valid.
What I DO is post science and state my opinion/observations on it. I never post it with an eye toward "proving" anything. Again,that would be a brain-dead thing to do given there is no debate.
What I also do is respond to propaganda as it should be responded to: strongly. Perhaps that is what you call my big stick? No, it is you people with your constant insults of people working hard to re-create the future that are posting propaganda and non-peer-reviewed "research." I refute your BS, nothing more. One of the "fine people" here recently called Hansen a fraud for chrissake... talk about bull...
Climate CAN change within the same time frame that we are largely expecting PO to do it's little number on the planet. Since not all answers for PO are equally good for AGW, one should not be complacent.
Watch the methane...
You are joking right? The best I can do is be the jury and look at the evidence. You want me to link in 20+ studies showing that the medieval warm period was global and not just confined to the NH despite this idea supposedly having being debunked? You want me to link into the numerous studies that propose sea levels of between 0.5 and 5m above present sea level WITHIN THE LAST INTERGLACIAL PERIOD circa 8500BP-3500BP post orbital warming effects? You want me to link in to the 100's+ studies on the mathematics of system modelling and how current methods need to improve? None of these studies PROVE that AGW theory is flawed; what they prove is that the case for AGW is not 100% sound and it is disingenious to ask for such a study as only time will tell. We have no crystal ball that "proves it" once and for all.
What all these studies do is piece together one big giant jigsaw puzzle that is earths climate. I feel you have a "black and white" attitude to AGW, but for me it is one HUGE big grey area with lots of science still being put together. I hear a piece that strongly favours AGW, I move that way and I hear a piece that questions it then I move the other way.
You mis-interpruted my stick comment. You have a slighly rude manner and throw insults rather too quickly - that is your stick.
Also you have one serious blindspot: You assume "peer-reviewed" is gospel. Furhter more these scientists are not infallable and neither do they claim to be. Also with so many vested interests I am not so quick to assign this title to the absolute truth pile!
Marco.
I ocassionally pump a few of these into my favourites but don't keep as they always want your money for the full version! This one is little ice age and medieval warming in South Africa.
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~gheiss/Personal/Abstracts/SAJS2000_Abstr....
If I was so inclined I would start saving them up for you but the stuff is all out there you just have to google it, or here's one about falling late holocene sea level where observed sea levels have been approx 0.5-2m above present sea level:
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252004/439.pdf
All interesting.
Thanks for the links - the study of climate is fascinating, and it would be interesting to discuss it on a site where a rational discussion was the fashion, rather than absolutist positions by people without expertise in the subject and abusive responses to those who may hold a different opinion on some aspects of a large and complex subject.
Ah... where to begin?
Did my fingers mumble? I said one would be a good start. You can't even do that, so...
Wrong. Logically flawed statement. 1. We haven't seen these studies, so they do even less than you propose. At least, until we do. But, let's assume these phantom studies exist. 2. The existence of evidence in and of itself means only that evidence exists. For example, record snows or rain are often cited by the uninformed or the shills as evidence against climate change, when they are really much more likely support it by demonstrating the instability that is to be expected.
Cite your sources, or stop posting on the topic. Please.
See, you are assuming. The correct phrasing would be, "you have come to have a B+W attitude." Yup. That's what happens when you study, learn and come to a conclusion. Thatis also what happens,in the opposite direction, when dogma is what you follow and science what you suspect.
Then I submit: you don't understand the science, are a shill, or are subconsciously biased. That last is exactly what one expects to see in the face of the propaganda machine we KNOW to have been in operation...even by the US gov't. You see, 1,000 : 1 in favor is pretty strong freakin' evidence. If 1 sways you to the same degree that 1,000 do, you have issues with this topic that none here can help you with.
If you say so. I don't recall it off hand.
No, I have a very direct, no-holds-barred manner with those a I discover to be liars/shills. Notice you and mud don't get the same treatment? Why do you think that is? Let me: you appear to be misguided but sincere. Mud has been proven to lie, distort, misrepresent and has engage in libelous statements of absolutely impeachable persons. Oh, and he's far ruder than I.
In my perfect little universe it simply is not rude to call a spade a spade. I don't understand people who think otherwise, such as yourself. But mud has called J. Hansen a fraud, dismisses AGW as a fraud and tosses epithets at the billions of people who see the science as supporting ACC,calling them religious nuts.
Oh, but he's just like FoxNews! Fair and balanced. And you have never once called him on his rudeness, lies, etc. Not once. Nor have you called him on HIS B+W views. What gives?
You, sir, have a bias. I'll believe you are truly sincere when I see it in your actions. Thus far, your actions are partisan on this topic.
Do you mean schtick? If so, you are wrong. I don't play games. There is no "schtick."
Cheers
Yes I did - did you not see my attatched post a few minutes after? There are many studies to this effect. If you do not do me the courtesy of even reading those 2 studies and commenting on what you think their significance is then I seriously question your credibility in looking at all the evidence - a charge you lay at my feet by the way.
Your other points; I don't feel have enough substance to them for there to be any debating value. Sorry.
Marco.
Why do you think the medieval warming period and sea level fluctuating since the Ice Age ended are news?
You'll have to explain why this is so.Or do you somehow believe there is no variability in climate, or that climate scientists think this? If so, you truly have little understanding of the issues you are attempting to discuss.
Damned foolish to raise an issue then claim it has no value. If debating why you and mud post here and why I respond as I do has no merit, then why the hell have you repeatedly raised the issue?
Mirror is too accurate?
Christ on a stick..
I think we are getting close to a conclusion now. I am pleased. Yes of course climate is very variable in the past! That's my whole point. So what we have to do is look at the most recent past in geological history ie the late holocene from about 8000 YBP to now as we know that this most recent bit has been relatively stable.
Bearing this in mind we can put the most recent warming in context: Has it ever been warmer with higher sea levels in the recent past during the period of satbility ie 8000 YBP to the present given that c02 levels have remained under 300ppm up till now?
Well there are many studies that say it has been warmer (such as the ones I posted above and many more exist just like these) - but what if there are perfectly well explained mechanisms that would allow a warmer than now scenario with lower GHG's (but in the recent past)? - if there are mechanisms that can explain previous warming in the last 8000yrs with c02<<300ppm then I am much closer to accepting the current warming as anthropogenic. Howerver it was while searching for these mechanisms (which I have yet to find) that I kept on stumbling across more and more studies suggesting that we have seen recent periods in history with temps and sea levels slightly above now.
The important point about the medieval warm period is that teperatures appear to have been slightly higher than now. However, climatologists rightly point out that it appears to have been a northern hemisphere event - why? - because thats where most of the studies have been. This being the case it is not accepeted as a global event and therefore global overall temperatures were not higher than now. BUT...what is emerging now is the fact that more recent evidence is coming to light that the medieval warm period also affected the southern hemisphere. This is very important as it puts into question the concensus that the MWP was not global. If NH AND SH both warmed then it is likely the whole planet was on average slightly warmer than now, with no known mechanism that would allow this to happen with CO2 levels below 300ppm.
I really hope you can start to see why I have doubts. If mechanisms explaining previous temp anomolies in the most recent past emerge I will obviously lean more towards the current warming trend being anthropogenic but for now the more I search on this the more studies I find suggesting that the variability was actually as great if not greater than now, just in the recent 8000 (supposedly stable years).
Marco.
I patiently await your response. If Gavin over at realclimate.org wasn't able to give me a satisfactory explanation for what I outlined above then I would be (pleasantly) surprised if you can. I am on one knee now. You convince me above why my logic is wrong and i'm a happy man all the more educated! I am prepared to come visit this thread for as long as you post and reply to me.
regards,
Marco.
The error in your logic is to assume that natural and anthropogenic variation are mutually exclusive. In fact the observed variation in climate will always be the sum of the two.
The powerful argument in favor of the AGW theory is that having accounted for natural variation, the observed variation is greater. Therefore the difference must be anthropogenic.
Hi Bob,
no you are right, I didn't state that explicitly in the thread above, but somewhere else in this giant thread I said I put the natural:anthropogenic ratio at 60:40.
Actually, some of the stuff I am reading now is about the pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and how it is super-imposed on top of the current warming trend gradient - but it ties in nicely with he dip in temps 1940's-1960's.
Marco.
If Gavin couldn't satisfy you, then you simply do not understand what is being said to you. The preceding is not a pejorative statement. Really, you just don't know enough/understand what's being said to you.
This is a meaningless question. What does it matter what happened at a time when CO2 was LESS than now? There are many things that effect climate and weather and I will readily state this moment that higher CO2 does not automatically = higher temps. In fact, there have been periods, for example when dinosaurs roamed the land that is now Antarctica, when certain locations should have been colder/warmer but weren't do to other forcings/factors. In the case of the dinos, it was the position of the continent and its effect on the climate - much like Europe and the thermohaline.
You are setting up a false premise.
You keep saying the temps were higher in the last 10,000 years. This is a common claim that does not appear to be true. The paper you cited was, I believe, four years old. That's an eternity these days because there is so much climate research being done now. The new hockey stick paper casts doubt on the medieval warm period being warmer, IIRC, as an example. But, again,it doesn't matter. There may have been a set of conditions at that time that allowed such conditions, but those conditions do not exist today. That makes your argument worthless. The past does not predict the future, it only allows us to try to make guesses. Do you not understand that a warmer period within the last 8,000 years literally means nothing about today?
To turn your own logic on you: since 383 ppm has never existed during the period of modern man's existence, it is highly likely we have no idea what's coming and must prepare for the worst. But you take the other extreme: These conditions have never existed in the meaningful past, so no worries! They can't be dangerous!
This is a shocking contortion of logic.
No, they don't. Your paper was 4 year sold. This came out this year: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xmillenia.htm It has already been posted on this site. Why do you ignore newer, more complete research in favor of older, less complete research?
No, I don't. What I see is what I always see: selective use of data; selective acceptance of data; gullibility in listening to the anti-AGW pornsters; failing to be aware of the most recent data,or to ignore it; the biased searching out of "science" that fits what you already believe; illogical conclusions based in a true ignorance (academic sense) of the science.
Worst of all, you are doing what all anti-AGW pornsters do: taking a single data point in the science and elevating it above all others. That is, you are taking it out of the context of thousands and thousands of papers and research and observations. The totality is the thing, not one single time period. Why aren't you blathering on about the sea ice and the methane? That's here, it's now, and it's irrefutable. It is hard core evidence. Explain it. It is far more important than the MWP.
Open your eyes and realize: for every point you make that might cast doubt on AGW,there are literally thousands that do the opposite. How you deal with that reality says much about you, and little about climate science.
You'll have to take my word for it that none of this post is pejorative. If you read it from that perspective, you may learn something.
Cheers
In this case A LOT becasue we are talking about warming in a recent period that apparently hade no heating from orbital forcing or any other known mechanism yet was still able to achieve temps and sea levels slightly higher than now - yet this flies in the face of current conjecture that relates current temperature increases DIRECTLY to C02 increases and sea level increases.
If it was just one paper then yes i would be sceptical but there are MANY papers to this effect, new ones appearing all the time as more paleo study is carried out. I honestly think the more scientists look at the past climate the more they are going to realise just how violent and abrupt and damaging climate shifts actually were - even without the addition of greenhouse gases. I guess I would need to start 'collecting' all the studies but I assusre you there is a wealth of this type of evidence out there.
Sorry, no way am I guilty of that. You are right I only post certain things here, but I read as much as possible and within the confines of the mind of an engineer try to understand as best I can the big picture. I'm not posting the stuff that I think strongly supports AGW (as of course there is plently) but am questioning /posting info that supports the oppostie case. A good analogy would be you have to prove a defendent guilty beyond all reasonable doubt but right now I feel there is still too much doubt.
I don't think in some cases it is as easy as separating the studies that prove AGW from the ones that disprove it as what many studies are doing is trying to understand a climatic process - and the conclusions are quite often "requires further study"!!!! But no if you could separate off into black and white piles I don't think the ratio would be 1000's:1
To be quite honest, regardless of the fact that occasionally I found your manner rude, I can safely say that you have influenced my view on AGW. If I could not admit that I would be an idiot. But the other important point is that all new science with regard to AGW will also influnce my view and i'm not about to shut down the part of my brain that makes me question the whole subject just so i can finally take a side. There is still lots of ongoing study and unconcluded science.
Models are in desparate need of a quantum leap! Far better proxies of the past need to be gained. Far better monitoring of ocean currents and dynamics is needed (at great expense). Far better understanding of the sun-earth dynamics are needed (SOHO should hopefully adress that). I could go on and on but the bottom line is I still think that we only know a fraction there is to know about climate and that climate science is still in it's infancy.
Another bit of honesty from me. There is a chance part of my lack of acceptance of AGW theory is the fact that subconsciously I know governments are going to do diddly squat about it so I worry more about energy depletion. I do not THINK that I have a view that is intentionally biased against AGW!
Marco.
False. There is always input from the sun.
False. There are always multiple mechanisms at work.
False. I have provided the data that shows your statement is almost certainly false. Why are you ignoring it? Further, it really means nothing. The conditions then are not the conditions now. Why must I keep repeating this? Can it help us learn something to look at the past? Of course! Does it negate the trend? No. Does it negate the much higher trend of the last 150 years? Absolutely not. And why do you not address the points I made? What effect should one expect from the highest concentrations of GHGs in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years? Are you denying GHGs are actually GHGs?
To ONLY CO2?
Of course! Why do you pretend this is something only anti-AGW pornsters know about? You keep pointing out the obvious that is considered common knowledge and IS considered by scientists everywhere. Hell, how many times have *I* warned on these forums about rapid climate change? Why do you pretend this is not the case? This is not an issue pornsters own!
What kind? Showing past temps were higher? Great. And I can show you magnitudes more that say they weren't. Why do you ignore the preponderance of evidence for a few bits that say otherwise? Further, why do you portray this as proving against AGW rather than simply adding to the puzzle we need to understand? And why do you NEVER deal with TRENDS? Data points mean nothing by themselves. Trends mean everything.
What you claim and what you do must be consistent or you have no standing in the debate. "Trust me" is not acceptable except as an opinion.
This is inherent bias! To be objective you must consider all info and present all info. Again, trust me doesn't cut it. If you are posting and arguing one side you are evidencing bias, pure and simple. Asking others take your word for it is not acceptable. This is basic debate technique. And, no, I do not have to follow this as I have come to a conclusion. You claim you have not, so must act accordingly to be taken seriously.
The one study on this point found that of 1000 studies checked, all either supported AGW or were neutral and ZERO supported the opposite. The only other relevant study in this regard found that of the pornster books written on the topic, 90% were put forth by those known to be politicized pornsters. But you want to believe it's all fair and balanced, you go ahead. You have no evidence to support that. I showed you that the once source someone provided had exactly the same outcome looking at the first ten links each for the pros vs. pornsters.
Who asked you to? I have asked you to be an honest actor in this "debate". You are not quite there. And don't insult me or others by implying we have stopped thinking. We have not. But we do what you only claim to do: we look at the preponderance of evidence and let it lead us. You look at the same preponderance and pretend the piles are equal.
This is a BS critique. You are turning logic on its head again. The uncertainty of the models supports AGW NOT being forced by GHGs even though the observable evidence not only fits the models but actually is far, far beyond where even the most pessimistic go? This is bizarre,to say the least.
This is like claiming there is a model for winning at roulette that should win you 1% over time, but has been winning you 5% over years and years, but this model proves you can't win more than 1% at roulette so you must stop winning the five percent so you can improve the model so it will allow you to win that 1%. Only THEN will the model be trustworthy!
The new hockey stick data does just that. You are ignoring it, so stop repeating this silly refrain.
This is the same upside-down logic as above.
I have already stated it may be subconscious. However, your own explanation here does not really support that: you are intentionally not debating the issue equally. Don't expect to be treated as an honest actor till that is corrected.
Cheers
Oh, and tell your pornster buddies to stop down arrowing everything I post. It's pointless and childish.
It's a conspiracy :-) !! Where are your pornster buddies??
But not enough forcing within the last 8000 years to account for the possible late holocene warming that may have put sea levels above where they are now. (studies say between 0.5-2m etc...)
But not any known strong enough mechanism within the last 8000 years to account for the possible late holocene warming that may have put sea levels above where they are now. (studies say between 0.5-2m etc...)
Prior to this yes, which is why it is likely the previous interglacial is accepted as being warmer than now (circa 120,000 YBP) - as it is known that orbital forcing caused the higher sea levels and temps.
- i'm sorry, you are incorrect as there are MANY studies which coclude late holocene sea levels and temps slightly higher than present. Instead of my listing them and having to find them all again you could just google "holocene sea level" or late holocene teperature".
Thats a thing I was curious about - how do these books get away with false claims about climate without being taken to court? I guessed it was because they could not be proven 100% to be incorrect. By the way the only "pornster" publication I ever bought a while back was "global warming: every 1500 years" and I agree that 75% of the material was questionable. Never-the-less
there were some bits in it IIRC that had not been refuted.
Nonsense: the climate scientists are the first to admit that many variables have been discarded and many assumptions are input into the equations. I stand rigourously against my assertion that they are inadequate. You are correct when you say the outcomes could be even worse than the models predict!! Certainly the models for arctic melt appear to be conservative right now. Wrong either way doesn't change my doubt about them. Negative feedback loops could be set into motion, the mechinsm of which we are still learning about - prime example is possible change in gulf stream current.
No, the hockeystick barely scrathes the suface. Within prehistory there are loads of 'hockey sticks' ready to be desovered - abrupt climate changes that happened in the past. Hopefully if we can understand those previous ones we can better understand how the earth will respond now if indeed it turns out to be fully anthrpogenic component.
No upside down logic in my statement whatsoever. If we knew it all then we wouldn't be pumping $BLS into research right now. Instead that money would be diverted right to mitigation of the problem of C02 - as you assert it is 100% settled.
Marco.
This is a complete waste of time. How old are you?
Just a quick question before we leave for dinner.
Do you get invited out much?
Another quick question: When the IPCC pulled all the reports for cencensus (on both IPCC 3 and 4), I was of the understanding that they did not ALL agree with AGW, but I am not very sure. Am I correct?
I do not know. But I do know you don't understand the scientific use "concensus" because you keep implying it means 100% agreement. It does not.
LOL., I am NOT implying it means 100% agreement. My context doesn't even suggest that!
Yes, it did. You stated explicitly the question whether ALL, your emphasis, supported AGW. See the down vote? Not mine.
Debating you two is not unlike playing Whack-a-mole, but less useful.
The bit you need to debate is above - my explanation about why those 2 studies, for me, are significant.
>>I ask the staff here to do the world a favor and no longer allow denialists to post here who cannot deal with the science as it stands. I am sickened by the continual lying from these people.<<
That would be the only way AGWarmists would ever get what they really want:
The complete elimination of any other possible mechanisms being discussed. That would be the only way that that AGWists would win.
You are SUCH a dishonest actor in this discussion. Truly disgusting behavior.
Quem deus vult perdere dementat prius…
I find the scientists observations clearly stated, "The discovery of this system is important as its presence provides evidence that methane, which is a greenhouse gas, has been released in this climatically sensitive region since the last Ice Age," Prof Graham Westbrook of Birmingham University, said."
Leaving aside the seperate and distinct question of methane release from permafrost, nothing is said about possible variation of recent trends in methane plume release.
Actually, going just from the content that is in the aricle, they present no evidence that the process is increasing. Rather the a-priori assumption that it is increasing because of GW and that GW is increasing because of increased methane plumes is circular at best. Possibly there is evidence that they did not disclose in the article? But it appears that this was simply an onservation of newfound methane plumes with no quantitative data from which to infer trends.
Just pointing out the level and quality of reporting on this very important question.
Oh... sure.
Why need they do so? It is already established that methane is increasing. can you not add 1 + 1 to get 2? I.e., if other studies have already established methane is rising, then a field study looking for sources need not re-investigate this.
Argumentative claptrap.
Will we EVER get some anti- porn that is worth the effort? I swear, it's like having a pre-schooler challenge you to a fight.
Cheers
The article states as a fait accompli that the process of methane release from methane plumes is increasing. "it is not known how much the process has been accelerated by recent climate changes". Yet there is scientifically speaking no reason to believe methane release from methane plumes is increasing. There is only a single anecdotal data point presented in the article which does not allow for any attempt at a construct of a trend over time. I inquired about other data, you provided none. My very cursory inquiry leads me to believe there is currently no good quantitative data on the subject, though perhaps this is another question you feel is beyond debate?
As regards the "peer-reiewed" research question. Someone either in this thread or recently mentioned an article from Nature (2006; Nature 439, 187-191) on methane release from plants. I'll dig out the reference if need be but I also stumbled on another article in Nature on the methodology of historical temperature measurements which would call into question recent assumptions on temperature trends. I am a layman with a passing interest in this and these are two articles off the top of my head which provide basis for discussion. The journal Nature is certainly one of the most highly respected relevant peer-reviewed journals and arguably the most appropriate forum for scrutiny, review and dissemination of recent scientific findings. You may dismiss such publications blithely but it is as respected and appropriate as peer-review goes.
You have hurled a tremendous amount of amount of insulting, hateful and hurtful invective around to me and others related to the discussion of global warming. Things like, "liar, hate liar", "Why lie?" "not very bright", "proven to lie, distort, misrepresent and has engage (sic) in libelous statements of absolutely impeachable (sic;) persons","You are SUCH a dishonest actor in this discussion. Truly disgusting behavior", "Utter tripe", "I don't, frankly, understand why you are allowed to post", "Jeers", "no longer allow denialists to post here ... I am sickened by the continual lying". This is, with the exception of "liar, hate liar" from a day or two ago, only a sample of your invective from this thread. And for me, just in your response to one posting, "can you not add 1 + 1", "Argumentative claptrap", "anti- porn", " it's like having a pre-schooler challenge you to a fight."
You needn't be so frightened as I am not challenging you to fight, I am inviting you to open, scientific discussion. I could almost hope for your sake you were some counter intelligence agent sent to disrupt discussion, though alas, I suspect you have only invested far too much of your persona in a particular position not to respond insultingly to others who are concerned about the future. Perhaps if you become furious enough and respond in such manner your position will be further bolstered. After all, others don't care about the planet and their homes. There are also not other, intelligent, educated people contributing who question your position.
I would propose to you that there is an even greater question than what the weather will be, and that is how do we treat one another? We are more closely realted to one another than to the rest of the environment, so first we should show we can treat each other half-decently some of the time. If you can't express at least some of the time a modicum of respect towards others, how do you expect to have sufficient wisdom and discernment to know how to protect the environment?
I will be peer reviewing an article related to pharmacogenomics the next few days, if I continue to see the type of odious responses I and others have been subjected to I don't think I'll keep "playing". Maybe it's a shame, perhaps you have something to say beneath all of that vitriol.
You do realize you are responding to info in an article, not a paper, right? I'm not sure you do. You are making suppositions about what is or is not known to the scientists. Do you really think that article reflects everything the scientists know? Further, do you think it wise to assume the writer actually fully understands what they think they understand and is fully privy to what the scientists found?
That said, I personally have zero doubt the plumes are increasing because 1. I've never seen such mentioned wrt the Arctic (though there may well be some out there), 2. the IPCC stated they would be increasing, so this is a known and expected positive feedback, 3. methane is increasing in the atmosphere, at the water level and below the water level, 4. we are seeing the same thing on land, 5. the Arctic obviously has warmed a great deal the last decade, and the water has absorbed an awful lot of sunlight the last five years or so (the greatest melt this summer was from BELOW, not above) and 5. the earth has been warming for 20,000 years. One might expect that to have an effect.
Assuming they aren't increasing seems rather silly, frankly. But, we can't speculate it is until we can PROVE it! Criminy...
For discussion. The question is, of what? Your mistake is in assuming that these are points for discussion of the merits of AGW rather than how they help us understand Climate Change.
I truly could care less what propagandists think about, well, anything. BTW, I don't think I have hurled any insults at you. Everything in your list, though I do no even attempt to recall everything I write, jogs my memory as having been stated to those clearly anti-AGW and who have been proven to be deserving of any such epithets. One or two, however, were not insults. You took them as being such. The 2+2 comment, for example, was rhetorical.
And I submit anyone who is engaging in anti-AGW propaganda is committing crimes against humanity. Given that perspective, your plaint above is rather misguided.
Ah, what the hell! Next time I meet a mass murderer in the middle of shooting up a school or something I'll invite him for coffee...
Please. Speak to your children like you're Ghandi. You are so full of it with regard to why and what I do, it's ridiculous. And hypocritical: I'm frightened, am I? And that's not an insult. Nor was your sarcasm?
Hypocritical in the extreme.
And please DO stop playing so we can get back to discussing the real issues of climate change and current changes being observed.
What Changes?
Oh yes.
CO2 Going up.
Temperature Going Down....
Darwinian - If the methane hydrates being released in the Oceans and the permafrost are creating positive feedbacks, then aren't any pesky attempts to halt global warming by human intervention a sham?
Joe
Given the fact that present climate change originates in 30 year old emissions, and present emissions will have to be cut back, preferably by someone else, not "us", especially not ME, yes.
Where did you get the 30 year lag figure? I'm curious as i've never seen it explicitly stated.
Something has just occured to me (it may be common knowlegde already!!): is the lag time between C02 and temperature a FUNCTION of deltaC02 (ie change of rate of C02)?
Marco.
Not a sham Joe, because a sham implies a fraud or a hoax. People who are fighting global warming are not engaged in a fraud or a hoax, just a lot of wishful thinking.
But you are on the right track, there is no hope, no hope, of reversing the current trend. It would take about 800 years for nature to start to reduce the amount of CO2 from the atmosphere if we completely stopped dumping it today. That means it simply does not matter when or how fast we dump CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, what matters is how much we eventually dump into the atmosphere. And we will dump it all! That is we will eventually burn all the oil we can possibly pump from the ground and all the coal we will eventually mine.
So if we have indeed reached and tripped the methane release feedback loop, all is lost.
But not to worry, I am but a Cassandra, telling you something that you will simply disbelieve. Well, at least the vast majority of you will disbelieve. It is in our nature to do so.
The story of Cassandra is an allegory. The story beneath the story is that it is in our nature to deny events or news that we desperately do not wish to hear.
Ron Patterson
"it is in our nature to deny events or news that we desperately do not wish to hear."
It is in some peoples nature to convince themselves they understand something they don't.
Oh, indeed. Or lie. It is sometimes difficult to determine if people just don't get it, or are lying.
For you methane fans ..
http://peakoil.com/fortopic44493.html
Triff ..
Do you want religion, or science ?
James Lovelock's book (IIRC as it's 2 years since I read it) typifies your quote when he suggests that the nitrogen cycle is a RESULT of symbiosis between biological and planetary evolution, not some random byproduct! I may have this slightly wrong as it took me ages to figure out this concept!
My point is that with literally 1000's of interdependent varibles the phrase "complex" is understated by several orders of magnitute!
Marco.
Exactly.
The climate is a system that is too complex for Homo The Sap to attempt to alter in any deliberate manner...
And it's too complex for the models to make useful and reliable predictions.
But of course, that won't stop the confused "DO SOMETHING" crowd from mucking up efforts at mitigating the Energy Crisis.
You've just said we should stop doing anything. Living, breathing, eating...
I have to agree with you and say that some of the technofixes scare me! However (as I have reservations about AGW theory) I am still happy to try reduce my C02 from an energy perspective - try ease the effects of peak oil etc., get on the bicycle, grow some of my food, go local. I love this type of stuff.
You are right though the DO SOMETHING CROWD who want to seed the seas with iron filings, spray stuff into the atmosphere to form clouds, stick big mirrors in space to block the sun......worries me more than climate change!
Marco.
I'd like to see us doing what is simple and obvious, and a good idea for other reasons anyway.
The recent 'paint cities white' proposals are one such.
Traditionally in hot climates whitewash was used.
We have forgotten basic common-sense measures.
Large rooftops and parking lots etc in cities would have a double benefit, both reducing cooling costs in the buildings concerned and reducing heat island effects.
Greenroof technology and proper water management of runoff etc would also contribute greatly
Yes, your link about this about (3 weeks ago?) was interesting.
I remember wondering at the time about the logistics of producing so much paint!
Spain has managed to whitewash houses on a regular basis for a good few hundred years!
Personally, I prefer greenroof technology, but the capital costs mean that it will take years to roll out on a large scale.
As a start, planning permission should be unobtainable for any new building which does not control it's heat output to the environment and deal with it's water run-off.
Hi Ron,
Something of interest to me in terms of Cassandra (as I live it) is that I guess I assume that a lack of denial - or a clearer look - can (possibly) lead to that "Path to the better" (inexact quote).
So, then I wonder...when you say no hope of reversing the current trend, do you mean because of the inevitability of burning all FF? (As you say.)
I.e., do you think there is a way, practically speaking, but just that humans will not do it?
What is that way?
Is there any combination of ways? What would those be? (If you can sum them up - not to ask for a repeat of previous discussions.)
Its not just methane that being release by the loss of the permafrost. It also releases massive amounts of CO2. The permafrost locks up a lot of dead and decayed plant matter and prevents it from oxdizing. When the soil becomes thawed, the carbon contained in the soil and dead plant material begins to oxidized to product CO2. CO2 emissions are now soaring because of the melting permafrost. The CO2 is much more of a problem, because Methane in the atmosphere decays into CO2 and water. As Darwinian said it takes very long time for the planet to trap CO2 released into the air.
Assuming even if a global recession or depression culls industrial CO2 emissions, CO2 emissions will continue to rise because the permafrost is melting. There is probably now enough natural CO2 emissions that will self-reinforce global warming. Another words, Humans are no longer required to sustain the trend if the permafrost continues to receed.
I think it is too early to panic over the reported methane streams. None of these reports have yet made their way into peer reviewed literature. Methane concentrations are not spiking as yet, although they are now rising slowly, after about a decade of little change. The time span for heat to diffuse deep enough to be cause a big problem with the methane hydrates should be long enough to preclude the really bad horror scenarios. We should treat this the same way a resident of New Orleans should treat a hurricane in the central south Atlantic, keep tuned for a potential future problem, but too early to go into panic mode.
Sources? You are aware there have been spikes of methane that occurred in decadal time frames, no? Now, if this is the beginning of one of those, how much time do we have?
Actually, your statement at the end makes no sense to me. What matters the time frame if the end result is massive releases of methane?
Cheers
i read some time ago that the japanese want to use some vast reserves of hot ice(is it the same as dry ice?) to extract methane and reduce their dependency from foreign oil
this will end well :P
I guess if the rate of natural methane emissions increases faster than the decline of man made CO2 emissions (adjusted for relative greenhouse impact) then we could say we were entering a run-away greenhouse effect. Since man made CO2 emissions are accelerating anyway, the point is largely moot, until we start burning a lot less coal.
No one knows when the tipping point would be reached - or has been passed. No -one knows how bad the impact of rapid global temperature rise would be, but the human species looks to be in overshoot without worrying about future climate impacts anyway.
I think the worst case is a rapid massive methane release from the oceans raising global temperatures about 10 degrees Celsius in a few decades, before reaching a new metastable state. That would wipe out most higher life forms fairly quickly, and leave all but the pole unsuitable for human population. We would see 90-99% depopulation.
Methane has a relatively short life in the atmosphere compared to CO2. Modest natural releases of methane will not trigger run-away warming. A planet-wide burp would.
With a bit of luck we will have a planet wide depression and coal consumption will fall fast enough to avoid this.
James Lovelock predicts 10 degrees rise in global temperatures, with only a couple of thousand breeding humans left. Within 100 years.
If one wants a doomer-read, or is not depressed enough yet, get his "the revenge of Gaia"
Edit: he also believes we are now crossing a tipping point and may only change course if we do a crash program of nuke building yesterday.
The problem with RalphW's theory is that we are at the front edge of what will be an extended warming period driven by CO2 already in the atmosphere. Nobody who is a legitimate scientist doubts the CO2 greenhouse effect is real - it is what keeps the planet from becoming an ice ball. Only the feedback loops, and whether they might heat or cool the earth, are in question. If the methane effect is large, all previous doomer projections are far too rosey.
Have a nice day.
Lovelock is like Hirch on viagra. If you accept the Hirsch report conclusion that mitigation of peak oil should have begun no sooner than 20 years before the onset of peak oil then you could very easily draw paralells and say that mitigation of AGW now is too late as the warming has clearly already begun and any effort to move away from fossil fuels under a BAU scenario will be impossible becasue mitigating the effects of AGW and peak oil is one and the same
Marco.
You and Daniel, thanks for replying.
Let me think about both yours' assertions and get back to you later
For me, the showstopper is the title. Not only is Gaia utterly incapable of agency, and thus utterly incapable of revenge, but Gaia is utterly without existence. All that exists in any sense of that sort is a swarm of competing organisms undergoing Darwinnowing on a wet ball of rock in the Sun's liquid-water zone. So why waste time on what the cover advertises as irrational mystical twaddle?
Paul, each nuclear cell in your body is a concatenation of once-independent, now-interdependent organelles. They still compete for energy, but now they also collaborate to survive.
It's easy to oversimplify the natural world through reductionism, but I for one have learned a sense of humility through the study of Complexity Theory.
Gaia may yet turn out to be a model that's mere twaddle, but IMO it's neither irrational nor mystical, just too complex to analytically deconstruct. Hence the easy dismissal by those committed to Cartesian, Newtonian deterministic linearity.
There's no need of agency or mystical twaddle or other nonsense to explain organelles. Those randomly assembled clusters of organelles, i.e. prokaryotes etc., that happened to function together reproduced. Those clusters that didn't died out. There is not the slightest need of "collaboration", which refers to agency and never happened; simple selection plus exponential growth arising from just one self-reproducing cluster more than suffices. The mystical twaddle, the narrative fallacy, enters the picture when what Taleb calls "the graveyard" - the unimaginably astronomical number of clusters that died out - goes unseen, perhaps willfully unseen.
I think aangel's explanation below makes far more sense. If Lovelock wishes he had chosen another title, then well he ought to have done, too bad he didn't, and conceivably the book might be better than the title.
PaulS, it's good to know that Lovelock at no time meant to imbue the earth with any sort of agency by selecting that name; in one interview I heard, it certainly sounded like he wished he had picked another name because of all the bother this one had caused.
When you read Gaia just make the mental substitution "integrated, codependent system" -- that's what we was driving at.
Correct. Lovelock does not in any sense claim the earth is sentient, and, I think, in his forward to the book, or maybe on the cover jacket, or possibly in the Rolling Stones interview of Lovelock, some six months ago, he regrets his choice of title. If Lovelock is correct with the theme of Revenge of Gaia, we really are up the creek. I have lived in the western United States my whole life and, I've been around some 60 plus years now. I remember incredibly blue and deep skies as a youngster. I have not seen such a sky in at least 50 years. Now, we live in a constant haze, and I continue to live in a rather remote and sparsely populated region with no nearby pollution sources. I have not seen the snowfall of my youth for many years now. The mountains still receive typical amounts of snow, but the valleys rarely do. The weather has become much more varied, especially, over the past 20 years. I've seen tornados in the desert during these past ten years. I have seen three 100 year floods over the past five years. I've watched our bird populations decrease to where, now, birds of some species, are never seen and the typical birds of yesterday are rarely seen. I no longer hear Meadowlarks, or watch Robins go for worms in the meadows. This year, our alfalfa yields were 1/3 normal yields because the nights were cold throughout the summer months. Our tomatoes didn't ripen. All anecdotal observations, but, I for one have no doubt we are experiencing rather dramatic changes in our climate. It is very simply common sense, to me at least, when we can see, taste, and almost, chew our atmosphere, because of particulate contamination, and the CO2 that goes with it, heat will be trapped close to the earths surface. I put a tarp over the garden if a cold night is expected because it holds in the heat of the day. I have my own model, and it seems to be quite accurate. If we continue with BAU, then, on the basis of my model, based on my own experience, living in the west these past 60 years, then I am confident to predict, temperatures on average will rise, the west well continue to become drier, the bird species will disappear, the daily weather will continue to become more unpredictable and violent, especially during the summer months, and there will be ever increasing dislocations of traditional agricultural pursuits. Just my two cents. Best from the Fremont
Re: More methane plumes found in Arctic
Reading the article, one sees this comment:
It appears that these plumes are not new sources of methane. The location does not present the same sort of geological situation that is found in the more shallow continental shelves on the Russian side of the Arctic Ocean. Thus, this release is not likely to be due to clathrates melting within the sea floor sediments. The bottom waters to the west of Svalbard are rather deep. Here's a map of the area. The Fram Strait is the deep trough between Svalbard and Greenland and the mid Atlantic rift zone which runs thru Iceland continues northward. While lacking a more precise location from the story, it's likely that this methane is of volcanic origin.
E. Swanson
"it is not known how much the process has been accelerated by recent climate changes or how much the releases themselves will contribute to global warming."
I remember a paper a couple of years ago that said basically the same thing about the previously unrealized, enormous amounts of Methane released by Trees.
Hope we don't "Do Something" in haste and cut down the forests.
Maybe we should flare all methane spouts around the world to convert to the lesser green house gas, CO2 ??
Trees don't release methane till after they die. While they are alive they remove CO2 from the atmosphere, fix the carbon in cellulose, and release the oxygen molecule back into the atmosphere.
When trees die, the process is reversed. If the decay happens in the presence of oxygen, the carbon in the tree is converted to CO2 and released back into the atmosphere. If the decay happens without sufficient oxygen (frex under water or after the fallen tree has been buried deep enough), then some of the carbon forms methane (CH4), which can then be released back into the atmosphere, particularly if the decayed tree is exposed or the soil warms enough.
So, cutting down forests is spectacularly bad for global warming. Not only do the cut trees decay (eventually, somewhere) and release CO2, the soil is disturbed exposing buried carbon to oxidation and releasing trapped methane. As for flaring natural gas, if you're going to release natural gas into the atmosphere, it would be better to flare it, as CO2 is indeed a lesser greenhouse gas. Better still would be not to release it.
Yes and no. Trees can release methane and other volatile organic compounds when stressed such as drought. Overall these compounds convert to CO2 and the net effect of forests is a carbon sink. We need a massive reforestation program combined with some iron sulphate in the southern ocean
=matt
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm
Let's go review the Models before we deliberately tinker with the climate.
There was only one problem with the MP study...when others tried to duplicate it, they could not get or reproduce the results.
A little like "cold fusion."
Or as I learned at the University: "all experiments should be repeatable, they should fail in exactly the same way!!"
Ah, no startrooper, not at all like "cold fusion."
Competent "others" have reproduced the results but got much lower numbers for methane release.
The amounts plants generate is not the point - the point is we do not understand the system well enough for confident predictions.
But that won't stop the Faithful from distracting us - wasting our time, energy and resources at This TimezUp.
No wonder people like Matt Simons dislike environmentalists.
Funny how you neglected to mention that and hi-lighted the apparently incorrect ALARMIST study. (The Trees Are Killing Us!).
I'm tired of your ridiculous logic: we don't understand it 100%, so DO NOTHING. As if producing less pollution, CO2 and methane could possibly be a BAD idea.
Utter tripe.
And if you are going to continually insult, "won't stop the Faithful from distracting us," I suggest you get more adult about it. And don't whine to Leanan when I finally do lay into you.
Re:
Methinks that this methane is not coming from volcanic origin
See The Storegga Landslides: Catastrophic Underwater Natural Methane Explosions
Then again it may be a whale passing gas
Flatulent whales caught in the act
If it were volcanic, there would be seismic confirmation. This ain't volcanic. Let's apply Occam's: We've got reports of methane from the ocean over a very wide range of places in the Arctic... does that jive with volcanic activity?
Nope.
Cheers
Ever heard of a hydrothermal vent or a "Black Smoker"? Such venting does not imply seismic activity in a major sense. Until we know where the venting is located, I think it's more reasonable to expect the venting to be from the rift zone rather than from surface warming of shallow shelf areas. After all, the Fram Strait has a sill depth of about 2600m. The bottom waters of the Arctic Ocean are very cold, just as the bottom waters in the tropical Atlantic of Pacific Oceans. The Arctic waters have a potential temperature which may be below 0C. The warmer waters are at lesser depths, as they tend to be less dense.
E. Swanson
You seem to be ignoring my point: since we are seeing large, new releases in tundra and from continental shelves in other locations, it seems far more likely that is the case here. Additionally, if it were smokers, would we not see the same phenomenon around the world?
Cheers
No, I suggest that it is you who are ignoring that there would need to be some different physical mechanism for releasing methane from clathrates when these are located at great depth and very cold water conditions. The release from tundra surface is from land, while any release from the continental shelves could be explained by warming the ocean close to the surface, but there's no indication of warming at the bottom of the Arctic Mediterranean which I am aware of. Where's your data?
E. Swanson
I understand the problem: you were simply mistaken on your basic premise as to where methane clathrates occur. I.e., not at great depth. Just the opposite. To wit:
Where do clathrates occur naturally?
No "different mechanism" needed.
Cheers
A tipping point is an increase of about 14°C increase above the 1961-1990 average in the high lattiudes (I'm referring to the Arctic here).
A couple of things happen, the freshening of the high latitude oceans "shutdown" the global oceanic (thermohaline) conveyor of deep, oxygenated water (think "Gulf Stream"), which immediately cools/freezes Europe. Think extreme crop loss for more than 300 million people. Globally, the planet continues to warm.
Beyond this, there are two schools of thought (the second seems more likely than the first).. The first school of thought is that the thermohaline circulation is shutdown for a long period of time (measured in hundreds to several thousand years). The second school of thought is that the thermohaline circulation starts up again (years to decades) but no longer follows it's familiar path and begins to submerge warmer and less oxygenated water to the deepest portion of the oceans.
In either case, the loss of this circulation begins to convert the oxygenated ocean to an anoxic one e.g., a Canfield ocean) with the destruction of the current food chain at the lowest levels. The sequence after that gets pretty grim. It has evidently happened before resulting in most of the mass extinctions on this planet.
Thanks. Very cheering thought. As if PO and financial meltdown are not enough.
I didn't realize there were still people who don't understand The Perfect Storm - other than denialists, of course.
Yes, financial meltdown, energy descent, climate change... This is why I keep telling people who are talking about massive build outs that their schemes are ridiculous. There is no time for them. Nuclear, in particular. This is why I advocate an emphasis on community-based build outs of whatever technologies fit where they are.
This is the only thing that makes sense once you realized the financial tsunami was coming this fall, that tipping points wrt climate change were already being passed, and that PO is virtually now.
Seems obvious... but I guess not...
Welcome to reality,
Cheers
The trifecta
And Global Economic Collapse leads by a nose
But the race has only just begun.
This is an early attempt, I may change it around later. The race is on:
I feel tears welling up deep inside
Like my wallets sprung a big leak
And a stab of poverty sharp and painful
That’s left me homeless and meek
You might say that I’m taking it hard
Since they wrote of my mortgage with a call
But don't you wager that I'll hide in sorrow
when I may lay right down and bawl
Chorus
Now the race is on
and here comes Bad Loans in the backstretch
Peak Oil goin' to the inside
Climate change is holdin' back
Tryin' not fry us all
My wallets out of the runnin'
American Dream's scratched for another's sake
The race is on and it looks like finance
and the winner loses all
One day I ventured in housing
never once suspectin' what the final result would be
and how I lived in fear of waking up each morning
living on the street
Now my gas tank is empty and my car is my home
for today was the one that I hated to face
Somebody came to strip the copper from my house
and I came out in second place
Chorus
Now the race is on
and here comes Bad Loans in the backstretch
Peak Oil goin' to the inside
Climate change is holdin' back
Tryin' not fry us all
My wallets out of the runnin'
American Dream's scratched for another's sake
The race is on and it looks like finance
and the winner loses all
Thanks Starship,
I didn't know about the anoxic ocean part.
How did the past recoveries take place?
100 %
Oh stop the dramatics! It was severe runaway global warming that made our one off endowment of oil and coal:-)
So in 300 million years after our demise and dogs have evolved into cognitive intelligent lifeforms they will have us to thank for the new crop of fossil fuels! Woof.
Sorry these are dark times and some of my (boderline) humour is needed.
??? I don't get this. My understanding is that coal formation started in the Devonian with the evolution of land plants and continued since then. Yeah sure most comes from the Carboniferous/Permian but it's always forming. The greatest periods of oil formation are the Mesozoic and Late Tertiary, but again, there are measureable deposits for just about every period back to the Silurian.
North sea oil for example is put at mid Jurassic I think (150 MYBP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Above graph puts CO2 at 2000ppm. I'll be honest and admit I've never looked into it much, I just always presumed a mega hot mega abundant plant/sea-algae etc life earth that all died and got buried!.
I think I'm going to have to resume drawing Cockroach Liberation Front posters, with the smiling roach with beret and four pistols.
"It's time!"
zero percent chance.
Mudlogger has made a GIANT philosophical leap, he has PROVEN A NEGATIVE !
or he has demonstrated that his opposition to Climate Change/Global Warming is faith based, and devoid of logical analysis.
Alan
I think opposition is the wrong word. I suspect, like me, it is scepticism. I always feel that, when I voice concerns about certain aspects of AGW, I am almost victimised like some sort of heretic. MUDLOGGER I think has expressed the same concerns as me in the past:
1) Too much weight given to what I feel are oversimplistic climate models (remember before a while back I did a lot of modelling and control systems so have some rudimentary understanding)
2) A climate that has been (pre)historically so violent that current trends are small in comparison, although I do conceed the fact that the current temp spike is anomylous within the current interglacial and as yet not FULLY understood.
3) We have such good insturmentation these days that we get "too good" a resolution in comparison to past climate proxies that we hope are well calbirated - makes you wonder what we would have seen had we instrumental records going back 1000's of years.
I don't think any of these concerns makes someone a "denier" but even very informative sites like realclime.org which I read regularly havn't allayed all of my concerns about AGW.
Best hopes for understanding things from someone elses viewpoint.
Marco.
Marco.
I have come to appreciate this website:
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
It gives both sides of the argument.
Thereby allowing people to make up their own minds.
Thanks for the link. I haven't ever seen this site.
Are we surprised that a site that gives an equal voice to anti-AGW porn in an unequal (1000:1) discussion is paid for by a climate skeptic? Or that neither of the persons running the site is a climate scientist?
No.
More BS. Tell me, who told you you could not speak? Who took away your internet connection? Who threatened you? Who threatened your family?
Meh...
Mud, thanks for this site. It will be a great source for climate news. It also pretty much destroys the Anti-AGW pornsters here, to wit:
The first ten links on the PRO side:
1 and 2: research
3: Energy farm
4. global cooling: trends vs. data points
5 - 8: research: methane
9: Alt. fuel research.
10: Research: abrupt climate change
The first ten links on the anti-AGW porn:
1. Opinion, anti-AGW porn.
2. Research portrayed as anti-AGW, but actually not.
3. Anti-AGW porn
4 - 6. Solar wind. (Also not anti-AGW, just new data that needs to be synthesized and examined.)
7 - 10. Anti-AGW porn.
The last one by Lomborg (an economist, for chrissakes), who is a joke outside the anti-AGW pornsters.
Count:
Pro: 10/10 science, research, energy R&D.
Pornsters: 4/10 science/research/data (but all cast as anti-AGW porn, though neutral data)
Now.... tell us all one more time how legitimate anti-AGW porn is...
Cheers
I think opposition is the wrong word. I suspect, like me, it is scepticism.
You are an apologist for mud, and I do not understand why. Some recent comments from him:
- Hansen is a fraud
- AGW is religion
- there is zero chance of AGW "boiling" the planet (We can be sure he understood the intentionally broad nature of the statement and understood the inference.)
And you think he's a skeptical? I'm trying to figure out what it means about your stance that you would grossly mis-characterize his.
Cheers
So MUDLOGGER said "Hansen is a Fraud"
In this situation I would respectfully disagree with MUDLOGGER. What I would NOT do is start calling MUDLOGGER a liar! It is possible to disagree and not fall out / trade insults. Anyway like I said above, Hansen is like Hirsch on viagra and seems to be a bit over-alarmist for my liking!
"AGW is a religion" LOL!! Yes the staunch AGW zealots can be a bit "preechie/fanatical" sometimes!
MUDLOGGER is correct about 0% chance the planet would boil. Do you realise what the vapour temperature of rock is?!! :-) Seriously though, taking mass die off of life into account the planet has survived runaway global warming before with average global temps some 10degC hotter than now - not exactly conducive to supporting 6.5bl people but nevertheless habitable!
Marco.
He demonstrably is lying in saying Hansen is a fraud. Do you prefer I call him an unhinged idiot? that would be the only other possible conclusion. Or am I supposed to lie and say, "Ah, yes, Mud, sir, he may well be. Tsk-tsk.."??
What do YOU say when someone is lying?
You are ignoring the import of his comment. He is clearly saying people who believe AGW is a real and serious danger are deluded. You support this. Wonderful. And you want to be taken seriously and expect to be treated well by those you think are deserving of being called deluded?
Why does he ALWAYS get a free ride from you? You attack me for saying things you consider beyond the pale, but say nothing about his comments that are, literally, illegal.
Are you a cockroach? No? But you think it funny to seriously consider the extinction of the human race? Cockroaches thinking so is understandable, but humans? Perhaps you are simply practicing your standup routine.
Look, I wanted to talk about the science, not MUDLOGGER!!
I am asking you to respond to my lengthy post up above about the siqgnificance of the two studies I posted, for which I have now written an extensive explanation of my undersatnding.
You do this and I'll be a more satisfied chappie.
Marco.
In case you missed the bit I wanted you to respond to here it is again:
I think we are getting close to a conclusion now. I am pleased. Yes of course climate is very variable in the past! That's my whole point. So what we have to do is look at the most recent past in geological history ie the late holocene from about 8000 YBP to now as we know that this most recent bit has been relatively stable.
Bearing this in mind we can put the most recent warming in context: Has it ever been warmer with higher sea levels in the recent past during the period of satbility ie 8000 YBP to the present given that c02 levels have remained under 300ppm up till now?
Well there are many studies that say it has been warmer (such as the ones I posted above and many more exist just like these) - but what if there are perfectly well explained mechanisms that would allow a warmer than now scenario with lower GHG's (but in the recent past)? - if there are mechanisms that can explain previous warming in the last 8000yrs with c02<<300ppm then I am much closer to accepting the current warming as anthropogenic. Howerver it was while searching for these mechanisms (which I have yet to find) that I kept on stumbling across more and more studies suggesting that we have seen recent periods in history with temps and sea levels slightly above now.
The important point about the medieval warm period is that teperatures appear to have been slightly higher than now. However, climatologists rightly point out that it appears to have been a northern hemisphere event - why? - because thats where most of the studies have been. This being the case it is not accepeted as a global event and therefore global overall temperatures were not higher than now. BUT...what is emerging now is the fact that more recent evidence is coming to light that the medieval warm period also affected the southern hemisphere. This is very important as it puts into question the concensus that the MWP was not global. If NH AND SH both warmed then it is likely the whole planet was on average slightly warmer than now, with no known mechanism that would allow this to happen with CO2 levels below 300ppm.
I really hope you can start to see why I have doubts. If mechanisms explaining previous temp anomolies in the most recent past emerge I will obviously lean more towards the current warming trend being anthropogenic but for now the more I search on this the more studies I find suggesting that the variability was actually as great if not greater than now, just in the recent 8000 (supposedly stable years).
Marco.
Yes of course climate is very variable in the past!
The current RATE of change appears to be quite rare. Random external forcings (massive volcanic activity. large meteors, etc.) could explain the other few rapid changings.
And the current warming is also caused by an external forcing, humanity dramatically raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by burning off much of the fossil fuels.
This rate of change is NOT natural ! Arctic ice melting away for the first time in over 800,000 years (from memory) and doing so in LESS THAN A HALF CENTURY.
Do not NOT look at the absolute values, which are within epochal range, but the unprecedented RATE of change.
And the simply facts of physical chemistry. Add CO2, increase absorption of infra-red radiation (much like a cloudy night in winter reducing cooling) and increase temperatures (if all other factors are constant or within range).
One has to stretch logic to conclude that increasing CO2 will NOT increase atmospheric temperatures.
Best Hopes for less Seeking of Denial,
Alan
Yep, I will conceed that point because it is a possible smoking gun of the a pulse input (well practically pulse in geological timescales) that is our ++CO2 input.
The sudden (over a few decades/years) changes that HAVE occured in the past paloeclimatologists have usually been able to pin on an event, as you say volcano, or say ice dam break etc.....
This brings me to a second problem on guaging past climate. Obviously the resolution on climate proxies spanning past multi millenia are not as good as the instrumental records we have now so the only other doubt I have concerning the hypothesis "has it done it in the past as quick??" is that maybe severe short duration spikes are not dected yet or detectable. When I say a spike I mean (few decades etc..or even a century) which is a spike in terms of geological time.
It will be interesting when other sources of climate proxies are gained for example like the vostoc cores but at other latitudes. I don't what, maybe mud core or similar that gives us temp records going back 1000's years aroud the globe!
Bottom line though is as you stated before and as I also stated, mitigation of peak oil and AGW is the same!!! I'm doing my bit to reduce energy consumption anyway. Sometimes it's even fun and challenging.
Marco.
Marco,
There are a variety of mechanisms that can cause global warming and cooling. Among these are changes in vegetation, volcanic explosions, meteors, self re-inforcing trends (slow), changes in ocean circulation and many more.
But humanity is now performing a massive chemistry experiment on the atmosphere and seeing the predicted results. This does not mean that the other causes of climate change do not exist, it just means that they are not active today as large forcings (would we not observe whatever caused the Medieval Warming Period were it active today ?)
If Krakatoa size volcanic explosions happened in 2009, two in 2010, and again in 2011, 2012 and 2013, Global Cooling would likely be observed. Does this mean that current AGW theory is wrong ? Hardly ! Just a larger forcing in the opposite direction.
Likewise, if humanity exploded 5,000 thermonuclear devices in the atmosphere, AGC would likely be observed (i.e. no summers for several years in a row, not good for the survivors).
Does this mean that current AGW theory is wrong ? Hardly ! Just a larger forcing in the opposite direction.
Given the very high level of scientific scrutiny (absent during the Medieval Warming Period), I do not find it credible that ANOTHER, LARGER Global Warming forcing is at work, but unobserved. And that is the denier position.
Alan
Alan
Quick addition to clarify my position: I understand the science puts much more weight on AGW vs natural variability but right now I am
40% AGW
60% natural variability.
(a few months back I was 30:70)
You must realise I am my own jury on this!
Marco.
I go with with:
AGW - about 30%
Variability - about 70%.
But this is before we look at possible Maunder or Dalton type minima.
As this would change the game completely.
The level of certainty required varies with the intended use of the conclusion.
If the truth of a theory being correct means only the difference between getting or being denied tenure, then high levels of certainty are appropriate.
However, if the issue is whether, say, 8% of world GDP should be used to reduce AGW significantly, then quite low levels of certainty are appropriate.
Assume that slowing AGW will mean a much higher GDP (but still lower than today's GDP) than "out of control" AGW GDP, then devoting 8% of GDP is justified (even if humanitarian and ecosystem effects are ignored).
A 30% probability is FAR in excess of the threshold in taking decisive, and expensive (if need be) action to slow AGW.
Oddly, the most effective means of adapting to post-Peak Oil (and preserving economic activity) are also the most effective in slowing AGW. So there is no contradiction between the twin goals of adapting to post-Peak Oil and slowing AGW !
Best Hopes,
Alan
The planet wont 'boil' short of being enveloped by the Sun as it expands at the end of its life.
We may loose the ice caps - it has happened in the past - Without us.
This is one of the issues driving the $700 billion bailout.....
JPMorgan Chase acquired the banking assets of Washington Mutual late Thursday after the troubled thrift was seized by federal regulators, marking the biggest bank failure in the nation's history and the latest stunning twist in the ongoing credit crisis.
Under the deal, JPMorgan Chase will acquire all the banking operations of WaMu, including $307 billion in assets and $188 billion in deposits.
To put the size of WaMu in context, its assets are equal to about two-thirds of the combined book value assets of all 747 failed thrifts that were sold off by the Resolution Trust Corp. - the former government body that handled the S&L crisis from 1989 through 1995.
In exchange, JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) will pay approximately $1.9 billion to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Separately, JPMorgan announced plans to raise $8 billion in additional capital through the sale of stock as part of the deal.
The acquisition is JPMorgan Chase's second major purchase this year following the mid-March acquisition of investment bank Bear Stearns, a deal that was also engineered by the government.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/companies/JPM_WaMu/index.htm?postve...
They bought assets from the fdic for about a half a cent on the dollar. They will probably bundle up the toxic loans sell them back to Hank Paulsen for far more than that, recouping their original investment and then more, much more. The government will end up taking back these assets, JPM will end up getting paid by the government to keep the cream of the WAMU crop.
Thus a large part of the bailout may be used to buy assets that the FDIC just sold.
RE: Southeast gas shortage squeezes small retailers
It is also squeezing consumers and all people in the area!
This is no joke...... I live in Woodstock, GA, and we have had little to no gas for over a week now.
They keep saying that it is on the way, but much slower recovery from the hurricane than expected.
Atlanta has also relaxed the sulpur content rules to get dirty gas shipped in place of the normal.
Lines are very long at any station that does have gas.
There is even talk of cancelling the Georgia Bulldogs college football game on Saturday!
This is just a small preview of what will come when oil supply starts dropping over the next 5 years.
Not that anyone would want to see this happen, but I wonder what sort of evacuation plan is in place in coastal GA and NC to address a hurricane that coincides with a gasoline outage? What sort of lead time would people need to bike out of harm's way?
Have you seen the people in the south? 2/3 of them would need a few years just to get into good enough shape to even think about biking or walking any distance.
On the positive side of things, we could always use these "Land Whales", as Kunsler refers to these beings, for a oil supply.
The governor shot that idea down right quick:
Also, ESPN is more interested in ratings than gas. The show must go on! People can just walk to work on Monday.
They've been trying to get commuter rail built between Atlanta and Athens since at least 1999. I'm guessing that it is too late to have it ready by this weekend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Train
Is nobody else here concerned about the new Russian outpost (Venezuela)?
Forget about the oil in Venezuela for a minute and look at the map. The new Brazilian oil fields are on the other side of this mess from the U.S.
IF the US were to stop buying oil from Venezuela, it would go bankrupt quickly without the profit from oil..... Then Venezuela would have to have support from Russia.
Chavez is in deep trouble either way it goes.....
Venezuela has announced it is increasing its exports to china and plans up to a million barrels a day within the next 3 to 5 years. Sorry but I lost that link. It is looking at joint ventures in refining and marketing as well. The Bush administration going after Hugo and trying to remove him is starting to look very counterproductive. If China gets a million barrels a day, the US doesn't. Whoops.
HUGO IS QUICKLY BECOMING LESS DEPENDENT ON THE US FOR A CRUDE SALES MARKET:
"BEIJING – China and Venezuela hailed rising oil exports and growing energy cooperation during a visit to Beijing by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that lent him a new platform from which to criticize Washington.
Chavez said oil exports to China could soar to 1 million barrels a day by 2012, up from 330,000 per day now. The two sides also plan to build four oil tankers and to construct three oil refineries in China capable of processing Venezuela's heavy, sulfur-laden crude.
"While the world enters an energy crisis, we are investing," Chavez said.
Venezuela regards China as a key link in its strategy of diversifying oil sales away from the U.S., which still buys about half of Venezuela's oil despite years of political tensions.
On arrival in Beijing on Tuesday, Chavez said Venezuela would demand respect from the U.S. and others."
Additionally, for the last 10 years China has been buying old fields in Vz and redeveloping them.
Venezuela just broke a BIG oil deal with China. It wouldn't go bankrupt.
Venezuela is planing to switch more of it's oil output to China. This is the reason why Nicaragua is planing to build a new channel independent channel to be used instead of Panama channel.
No, because Venezuela is not a Russian outpost, but an independent actor. Which is probably what motivates your concern.
There is more chance of Canada seizing Alaska and Texas than there is of Venezuela doing anything but defending Brazil's sovereignty.
What are you peddling?
You make it sound like Putin is just doing this for the fun of it. If Russia doesn't want to introduce new influence in the region (at the expense of the U.S.), then what the h*ll are they doing?
Trying to lure Sarah Palin to South America so they can finally launch their sneak attack on Alaska,
I think Russia is playing the same card the US played by circumventing Russia with military bases in former Sovjet states.
It is actually quite a shrewd move on Putin's part. The US has been going hell bent for leather to try to bottle up Russia. By forming partnerships with countries like Venezuela, Putin has made a forceful, but peaceful, response to US agression in Georgia, while at the same time solidifying Russia's importance as a hydrocarbon source.
It really is a shame that Putin is so much smarter than our morons. If Bush were in charge in Russia, they'd be destabilizing Mexico and trying to put a Russian puppet in charge via "regime change".
He's giving the US the finger, in return for Cheney's and Rice's visits to and comments concerning Georgia.
Face it: The days when people were nice to the US out of fear are gone, and they ain't coming back.
Kind of goes back to the old saying: Treat people the way you would like to be treated.
Starter for ten, let me think about this for a moment.
Which well known country spends more on war and weapons than all the other countries of the world combined??
Which well known country has military bases in over 100 foreign countries?
Which well known country has invaded another recently to promote regime change even there was no proof of WMD as claimed?
Which well known country has a long history of promoting regime change for the benfit of its businessmen?
Oh no, its just too hard to get the answer.
We Canucks would love to take on Alaska and Texas, but please, please keep Crawford & Wasilla!! :-)
America is bankrupt, and has military bases in 130 foreign countries. What's that all about?
The decline of empire.
Huns and Visigoths and Vandals and such.
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/26/saudi-supercomput...
We will [not] be dragged kicking and screaming into a low carbon age:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/26/biofuels.climatechange
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/26/automotive.greenpolitics
Seems like there is resistance at all levels in reducing our fossil fuel consumption. I honestly think it is going to take something really catastrophic before we start to leave some of those megaprojects in the ground.
Marco.
LOL on that first one. England may be the green and verdant land sung about at soccer matches but it's also often a damp, dank, drearily cloudy land. So as long as it's only a matter of thumping on evil, wicked businesses, expect plenty of noise - but the instant it comes to dirt-cheap flights taken at whim to the sunny Mediterranean coast, expect fierce resistance. And with these quasi-rationing schemes (also including Kyoto), as soon as one party starts bugging out, the whole works begins to unravel. Such is life.
The evolving complexity of the debt mess reminds me of a post I wrote here about two years ago. It was in a discussion comparing peak oil to peak debt, and someone commented that you couldn't really compare the two because there was no limiting factor on rising debt like oil supply has with the geophysical laws involved. I responded by posting a total U.S. debt chart comparing a peak in the 20s to the one we have now.
I said that there was indeed a limiting factor on rising debt and it was simply this - stability. As debt instruments get more accepted and marketed and flung into every nook and cranny of our economic system, it has to reach a point of being a house of cards engulfing not just the parties to the debt, but all the rest of us as well. I rest my case.
Keep in mind that this is a ratio. It is my understanding that the primary contributor to the 1935 peak was the collapse of GDP. Therefore, the current high ratio (with an expanding GDP) really has no analogue on the graph. Or put it this way, what would happen to the ratio if (or more accurately when) we have a comparable collapse in GDP?
Almost impossible the way they calculate (fudge) GDP stats now-they are claiming 2.3% growth for last quarter right now (from memory)-there isn't one human in the USA that buys their line that the USA isn't in a recession. This must be the first time in USA history the country is in danger of "economic collapse" per BushCo and also it is showing "strong growth".
The government's fudging of numbers is really starting to be an issue. Economists are essentially flying blind.
My take is that the GDP numbers are so corrupt as to be worthless. I think John Williams at Shadowstats is close to correct that unfudged GDP has only been positive for one quarter in the entire Bush presidency. Viewed that way, we've been in a stubborn recession for 7 years, and that recession is now rolling over into something much worse.
Even so, based on the chart, I would expect the debt/GDP ratio to explode over the next couple years, just as it did in 1930. I think it is an indicator of how much worse the debt problem is today than it was back then.
It was very hard to make economic decisions in the final years of the Soviet Union, what with the false statistics.
I agree that we've used borrowing to hide an economy with negative natural growth. We've borrowed trillions, and each borrowed dollar should produce several dollars of economic activity each year - more than the announced annual increases in GDP. Take out the borrowing, and we'd already be in a second Great Depression.
Hi super,
Has someone done this? Related the borrowing in a meaningful way to the GDP? (in a quantified manner?)
The idea that the US could have been in recession for 8 years without people noticing is complete lunacy. Shadowstats should start again.
Tell that to the millions that lost their jobs.
Ouch ?
Nice graph.
Too bad it's almost 6 years behind. I wonder what it would look like today?
Maybe this graph will put the situation into perspective.
E. Swanson
Leanan, I got a good market pulse from today’s DrumBeat. So many different factors all influencing one end product.. yeah the black stuff. I found it interesting that the Saudi’s side with the consumer when oil prices are too high, in either case there is evident collusion that takes place each month, whether you would label it as a “discussion” or “negotiation”. It seems most countries, and now even the island of Jamaica, is feeling the effects of our oil shortage as peak oil becomes a reality of the now. We all want to quit the habit, but at what cost? I think its fair to say that the children to born in the next few years, are either going to have a green and alternative future, or they will continue our trend our reliance on oil, as we’ve seen new underground gas lines, and the offshore drilling ban lifted as of Sep 30th this month. I like to think we do have a green future and remove oil from our dependency list. I read yesterday from another bloggers perspective that :
"A new world order is fast developing. The U.S., while a critically important player in that ‘new world order.. will increasingly become, dependent on its trading partners." Source
It seems as if this is becoming truer and truer each day as if were a self-fulfilling prophecy from the days one the idea of an NOW was only a conspiracy theory.
Maine can't sell their transportation bonds
I think part of this problem here is that worthless or overpriced bonds are not being put on the market and hence a fair value determined for them. So there can't be a market for new bonds.
These bankrupt firms need to sell their assets on the open market and let traders pick through the carrion and find bits of value and let truly worthless paper evaporate into nothingness. There is a lot of good city bonds and such in the dung heap but bailouts keep it all hidden in the pile.
That is what a lot of people are saying. They need to come clean. The tide's going out. Let us see who's naked, painful as that is.
Ha! The tide is out but now they are smearing themselves with mud to cover up!
They should just be honest about the future postPeak situation and sell NPK-bonds that are redeemable for a certain quantity of grains or flour only. IMO, this could help jumpstart my speculative 'Federal Reserve Banks of I-NPK. There is currently no futures market in I-NPK, but the future is dependent upon sufficient I/O-NPK being agro-applied in a timely fashion to our topsoil.
I can think of nothing more future-oriented than the combo of [seeds + NPK + labor]--can you? When the metric of 'consumption days of grain reserves' are less than the time it takes to grow the next crop--well, as Bill Doyle of POT said with dramatic understatement, "...we will have very serious problems."
A little more thinking on this topic [please read earlier biosolar investor & Earthmarine postings in TOD archives]:
So let's say I buy a $1,000 bond. Since it will be in my best interest and protection: this will be restricted to a local farmer in my area: I can pedal out anytime to see my gradually shrinking one ton of I-NPK with my name on the bags. These bonds will of course not pay any interest, but just foodstuffs based on the farmer's success against the weather/climate. If he has a bad year with a low harvest yield: all investors will have a smaller sack of harvested grain or veggies or eggs or bacon or whatever he grows.
No financial magic allowed; no hedging or leveraging or any of that crap. A farmer, with sufficient investors, might have a twenty year supply of farming inputs right on his property, which is a key concept of LOCATION to reduce FF/I-NPK latency. That way he is not long distance JIT dependent on I-NPK coming from Russia [N], Morocco [P], and Canada [K & sulfur].
Obviously, we will have Overshoot starvation in the future with machete' moshpit mobs. But I can pedal out to the farm with my composted humanure, help in the fields, and patrol/fight off invaders if required. This is just part of my Earthmarine concept: people WILL NOT be allowed to eat the last carrot, chicken, etc. If I die protecting the future crop & I/O-NPK stockpiles: such is life, but it is truly stupid to let a farmer or expert urban permaculturist be killed by idiots. But Earthmarine snipers high atop a grain elevator or NPK warehouse should be able to get the drop on any thugs trying to invade a farm.
Hey Toto - any idea why POT stock has been falling this past week?
Hello Peak_a_Boo,
Thxs for responding. First, I am not a financial adviser-- please practice due diligence.
As discussed earlier: my guess is lots of people are selling out because they want the safety of cash to eat today [Nate Hagen's discounting topics] vs worrying about eating in the future as a long term biosolar thinker/investor; same as with money market fund redemptions being skyhigh; precious metals being Unobtainium, and other effects.
If there are rich people [see Rainwater & Simmons] trying to buy a farm [also suggested by WT's ELP]: I bet you need a huge down payment or all cash to seal the Happy Meal deal. My biosolar investor postings are aimed at the little guy trying to ride on the landowning farmer's success or failure. If a farmer doesn't have to worry about inputs or raiding invaders: he will be much more likely to get Liebscher's Optima and avoid Liebig Minimums for bountiful harvests if the weather is kind,too.
Recall that the goldbugs urge physical possession, not a piece of paper. Recall earlier weblinks where many farmers have been on I-NPK allocation and/or having to prepay far in advance of later delivery to get their inputs. The farmers realize the fight is on; their trying to grab their future by taking physical possession [if possible] before prices increase even more. My feeble two cents.
Hello Bob,
Regarding the drop in share prices of agricultural stocks I found some interesting tidbit on cnbc:
Amazing how the vivid the drama of today's news when Pakistani and American troops can fire on one another and hardly anybody on this side of the pond notices.
For another link: http://news.aol.com/article/pakistan-warns-us-after-shots-exchanged/183619
Wonder if October will be as colourful with its daily round of fireworks as has been September. This is, of course, if we get to October without Depression or nuclear exchange.
The way things are going we could have both on the same day. My wife asked me this morning why I read this stuff before I go to bed. Frankly, I didn't have an answer for her. :-(
Too bad the Drumbeat itself has no up/down arrow - I would click it up every day! Thank you Leanan for a fantastic job digging up relevant news. The article about Japan's trade deficit is a great example.
Bush speech on bail-out deal fails to soothe markets
"US financial sector, but shares tumbled amid fears that a deal may not be struck."
Anyone considering that shares tumbled on fears that
a deal 'will' be struck ????
Triff ..
Using an average figure of 56 million dollars annual compensation for the CEOs of the Wall Street houses, it works out to about $240,000 a day or $30,000 for each hour the stock exchange is open. Last I heard, and this is pretty dated, the POTUS makes something like $450,000 a year. I'd love to see a graph of oil prices, oil CEOs, and Wall Street CEOs salaries. If they expect to be seen as other than parasites, they sure did themselves some bad PR with these levels of remuneration. Payback was overdue and their chickens have come home to roost.
I'm yet to be convinced that the economy would be worse off without these guys and their 'industry' any more than my cat would be worse off without worms. Not knowing exactly what it is these guys DO, and them not feeling behooved to explain their great contribution, one can understand the public's skeptical response.
Compounding the mess is the dimming prospect of the dollar being the sole currency for the oil trade. What are the Chinese giving Hugo for the oil? Without the IOCs being the broker, anything is possible between sovereign nations. When Juan will take the Yuan, it's a whole new outlook on the game. If the Chinese wanted their currency to be king all they need to do is destroy the dollar. Or let it destroy itself.
Re your graph, what is clear is that over the last 25 years, there has been almost a perfect NEGATIVE correlation between the economic strength of the USA and CEO renumeration (especially Wall Street). A stat that even Obama doesn't want the public to understand.
"When Juan will take the Yuan, it's a whole new outlook on the game."
Line of the day!
It only takes about 6 months for anyone with a reasonable IQ (125 or up) to perform anyones job in our society. Experience is not, and never has been an indicator of competency. (Just look to Washinton for a perfect example.) The lead time to replace all of the CEO nitwits and Government Twits would be very short. No one earns more than 4 times lowest pay....even in the bogus military we have.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95037755
All Things Considered, September 25, 2008 · Gas stations across the Southeast have been running out of fuel, a lingering effect of hurricanes Gustav and Ike, which struck Texas and the Gulf Coast. Refineries had to shut down temporarily, halting the supply of gas into some areas.
The shortage has been felt strongly in places like Nashville, Tenn.; Tallahassee, Fla.; and North and South Carolina. In Atlanta, many stations are still out of gas, and others have long lines.
On Thursday, there was a strange sight at one of the few stations in the northern Atlanta suburbs that had gas: Dozens of cars waited in a line that snaked out of the station and right onto a main thoroughfare.
Amazing... the U.S. restrained the Israelis. I remember being puzzled as to why the Israelis would announce that they might bomb Iran rather than what they have normally done in the past, which is just do it and announce it later.
Isn't one of the main complaints from Middle Eastern countries that the U.S. supports Israel unconditionally? Granted, it doesn't seem like the U.S. did this out of humanitarian reasons but they did it. Do you think that Bush has realized by now how much his war in Iraq has weakened the U.S. position? If the U.S. army were not in Iraq, they would have had more options.
We still have 20 B-2 stealth bombers that can deliver 40K each of high explosives or nukes anywhere any time.
Well great, then America has a credible deterrent for its own territorial defense. Let's shut down the 14 carrier task groups, the bases in 130 countries, the Marine Corps, the vast fleet of jet transports, and the poor bastards in the National Guard who are kept in combat zones repeatedly against their will.
Wake me when there's a threat comparable to Hitler as a percentage of the world's military power in a position as important as Germany.
And that's helped us oh so very much these last few years...nothing like discovering the limits of military power yet again.
I think you are missing the implication here: They couldn't do it without the US. Why? The US is involved.
I think Bush realized there was no support for this from any quarter, and that they could still do this at virtually any time.
The fat lady ain't sung. Yet.
Cheers
Oh, please. Don't vote down just because you disagree. It's immature.
Technical Analysis (TA) – 13th Post
"Looking at the size of the credit market in the United States, the equities market, the housing market and then looking at the size of the credit default swap market, which is around $62 trillion now, and the world wide derivatives market which is now $1,300 trillion dollars, I very much doubt that $700 billion would make any difference at all. In fact, I think it's a bad proposal in the sense that it will distort market pricing," http://www.cnbc.com/id/26895741 "My friend suggested what would be much cheaper -- go in and buy a million homes in the United States and burn them down. Because that will reduce the supply. Of course it is an economic nonsense solution, but it is as good as the Treasury's proposal,"
This morning, oil is down and gold is up. This would appear to be somewhat bullish for oil, if oil plays catch up with gold. The dollar (vs EURO) is flat. And, the DJI isn't diving, so one wouldn't expect a bunch of selling to cover stock margins.
As far as my TA on OmniTrader is concerned, for USO, I am only getting unfiltered (“unconfirmed”) signals. I am getting an long signal (74/99) signal from my volume strategy from six days ago, a strong (99/99) long signal from my all systems strategy from five days ago, and a weak short (52/99) signal from the unfiltered reversal strategy from yesterday, and a weak (1/5) short recognized “Harami” pattern. The overall vote is “Short,” because of the new signal from the unfiltered reversal strategy.
My USO chart now has so many hand-drawn resistance lines and trend lines that it looks like one of those pictures of a web built by a spider on LSD. There is a downward trend line for the past five days (including today) based on the close price, there is a six day high price resistance line at about 89 and a low price resistance line at about 84. And, the low price resistance is at 73 from nine trading days ago.
The volume rate of change is trending downward, which under the circumstances, may be a bearish indicator.
I feel like buying USO long and short at the same time. The price is being held in a fairly tight range, so I will probably just continue to stay out.
(For my TA, I am using OmniTrader (20-day backtested, end-of-day [EOD]) with the pattern recognition module (short, med, and long), and I trade USO as a proxy for oil, and UGA as a proxy for gasoline. I am using the standard strategies for breakout, trending, and reversal (all filtered and non-optimized), one that I created with all 75 systems, another one I created with only the volume systems (both optimized and unfiltered), and an unfiltered version of the reversal strategy. I use OmniTrader because is is highly automated, and somewhat easy to learn; however, I don't know if the this the “best” program out there. Once again I have put myself out as a fortune teller – a sure way to end up looking like a fool. I am not an expert at TA, I am a beginner (sometimes a badly hungover beginner). This is in no way to be considered to be investment advice, I'm the one who needs investment advice. Please add to this analysis, and don't feel shy about flaming me if I said something dumb. I definitely want to stay out of the group of the “stupid people losing money.”)
Generaly.
I read frequently your TA analysis.
I don't have advanced tools like your OmniTrader and I found the tools that came with my broker's platform mostly useless for oil.
Instead simple tools like checking support and resistance lines work much better.
In the last few days I observe in the morning quite easy support and resistance tested a few times already. After one of them is broken a quite fast swing with a few dollars follows.
Today I decided to test this with quite good success. Also I found out that during the day those supports and resistance were still valid so at the end I made some good amount of money today playing once those lines were broken.
For most Americans the market is where you buy milk and bread. Out Here in Decatur County IA stock is either Black Angus or heifers. Do tell this country bumpkin what the hell is USO? Back in my Navy days I knew what the USO was but I don't think it means the same to you. I find most of the posts quite education but your constant use of specialized jargon is anything but enlightening.
Here' s what Google says USO is.
Maybe ?
Thomas, I'd guess you're a lifelong cattle farmer. That guess comes from living in Nebraska and Iowa (Clive '95-'03) for over 30 years. If I'm wrong, I'd be surprised if it's my much. I know that guess isn't really much of a stretch on my part.
In my case I haven't been a lifelong anything. But I've noticed a pattern in all the things I have been – they all have there own jargon. Course at some level you knew that, right ;) ?
I use to use technical analysis with some success in the mid 1980's but as computers became more widely available in the 1990's I found that it ceased to work for me and gave it up. Nowadays with the sophisticated software and powerful hardware as well as instant information communication, I doubt there is any advantage to it.
The problem is that everyone knows this stuff immediately and it all cancels out IMO. There are so many signals and chart formations that it makes your head spin. And frequently they contradict each other depending on the whether the chart is hourly, daily, weekly or whatever.
Resistance can instantly become support and visa versa. Any chart formation can turn into any other formation and usually does. All the market cares about is matching buyers and sellers at a particular moment in time. If it does it has performed its function.
Someone has said there are no rich technical analysts and I agree. I doubt Warren Buffett does any of it. Profit lies outside of TA in my opinion. There is more to be gained in understanding Peak Oil and taking concrete practical steps to deal with it than looking at chart formations which can change from bearish to bullish without warning as just happened with oil.
And it can happen so fast that you are wiped out. The psychological stress of it all is not worth it IMO. Life is too short. Dealing with the enevitable stress of trading markets makes it shorter still.
I still have to sell my grain each year, but I have found the best strategy for me is to sell cash in the spring during April, May and June. It worked very well again this year.
Further to the linked story uptop Gas shortage may crimp weekend fun here's the governor's response.
Cancel UGA-Alabama Game, Urges Oil Executive
I have one thing to say about that: bread and circuses.
Remember, Governor Perdue is the same one whose idea of a good response to the Georgia drought was to pray for rain.
Maybe he needs to pray for gas...
And as for bread and circuses- I liked the following quote from your link:
"... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses." (Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81)
The article top-linked, Governor Schweitzer's energy delusions is great! Thank you Ben Sutter. (Who apprently reads TOD, and perhaps comments here too.)
Yes, he does. I'll let him de-cloak if he's so inclined.
That's me. Thank you for the kind words. I wrote the piece on Labor Day, while the Queen City News was on vacation. I thought it might get a little stale by now (the QCN was catching up and I had to wait my turn) but it turns out it was published the day before the second gubernatorial debate, which took place here last night.
One small correction: I discovered that the 20 people and 4 pies metaphor was not from a commenter but an article by Mike Bendzela linked from a DrumBeat in January, 2007: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_ben_070114_the_us_is_not_leavin.htm
Ben(ch)-
I, too, thought your article top notch, having tried to make many of the same points many times to any who will listen - far too few, of course.
Oddly, and I'm not really sure why, the one part that didn't resonate with me was that pie analogy. Somehow, it didn't seem to state the case starkly enough. Something along the lines of '3 pies split among 19 people seems ok, even if one guest is being a pig'. One alternate that hit me as better in at least one way is this - 100 people at a party with 4 kegs. 5 frat brothers commandeer one to themselves. Now there are 5 loud, obnoxious, drunk frat brothers to spoil the party, and they've got their eyes on the other kegs to boot. Something like that.
Anyway, great article!
Thank you very much, clif, and Seadragon below.
The pie metaphor is not ideal, how about 4 hot dogs, or Clif bars? That swings it the other way, 19 people starving while one has a reasonable portion. The keg works, I guess, but I try to forget that beer drinking frat boys exist. :)
Nicely done...I read lots of stuff, internet and not, and this stands out for clarity, conciseness, and brutally frank reasoning.
So go back to Judy, maybe Raicicot. :) They only sold off Montana Power and the state's water rights.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/06/60minutes/main539719.shtml
http://www.montanariveraction.org/sorry.saga.mpc.html
Schwietzer may not be perfect, but MT could do alot worse.
Yes, things could always be worse. I think you are just bantering and not suggesting that I shut up and take it. Things are a certain way now and that way is bad, regardless of what previous administrations did, and I think it needs to be called out, especially with the rock star persona that surrounds Schweitzer.
probably my mistake to get involved in politics. I've met Brian, as I imagine you have, and tho I detest his continual cheerleading for MT coal, I think he beats what's out there by a long shot. He fights hard for water, and ag, and generally looks out for the little guy, as all MT politicians espouse. But I don't see anyone else fighting for that in court the way he has. The rock stars need to be dulled, but they only sing to one audience. And while we're bashing, I didn't care for his grandstanding with senior busloads for Canadian meds when he first started running for Senate. But it was effective, and before you knew it, seemed every other northern US politician followed suit. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it'd be pretty easy to knock him out.
Some day the dust will settle and there might be a few humans left standing. When that day comes, perhaps the survivors will have gained wisdom. Perhaps they will pass it on to their descendants. We can keep our fingers crossed.
My interest now is in what would a more rational/sapient society look like. I doubt there is any fix or combination of fixes that can solve our problems and leave us with a civilization that looks anything like what we have now. So we need to consider the future when the turmoil settles and a new chaotic attractor basin evolves! For that is what we are witnessing now - a transition to a new regime. Nothing short of a re-design will do.
Question Everything
George
Hello TODers,
My heart goes out to this father & his kids, but it sure would have been nice if his earlier schooling days included discussion of overpopulation, exponential growth, Malthus, Peak Everything, etc....
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hlZbpXbUt5CbF3Ra6tEc-6uzzToAD93EI29O0
---------------------
Neb. dad who left 9 kids says he was overwhelmed
----------------------
I expect to see much more of this sad trend going forward.
"Hollis Brown spent his long last dollar on seven shotgun shells."
i think Bob Dylan understands this sad tale.
(wooops... i lost sleep knowing i quoted the song wrong.)
a good doomer song for when your sit'n in da cabin watchin the food run low and the firewood dwindle as the mercury falls...
But somewhere in the distance there's seven new people born. Or seven billion.
Hello TODers,
To help promote O-NPK recycling and since the US Mint has halted sales of the Buffalo Gold Coin: perhaps they should start selling buffalo chips in attractive gift boxes.
Photo of future delivery:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3308/3308-h/images/pl063.jpg
Bet a wheelbarrow would come handy! Have you hugged your bag of NPK today?
oops! sorry! I don't know why the image doesn't work--Here is the fascinating source link, then scroll down to image 63:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3308/3308-h/3308-h.htm
----------------------------------------
The Bontoc Igorot
...Igorot badly injured in war or elsewhere are usually killed at their own request. In May, 1903, a man from Maligkong was thrown to the earth and rendered unconscious by a heavy timber he and several companions brought to Bontoc for the school building. His companions immediately told Captain Eckman to shoot him as he was “no good.” I can not say whether it is customary for the Igorot to weed out those who faint temporarily—as the fact just cited suggests; however, they do not kill the feeble aged, and the presence of the insane and the imbecile shows that weak members of the group are not always destroyed voluntarily. Page 48
---------------------------------
I just got an automated telephone call saying "I was approved." I guess the credit business is alive and well even without a bailout. BTW: I happen to be in the 80%. Maybe they don't call the other 20%.
I got 2 credit card offers today in the mail from WAMU...ha!
And, I got a letter from the Securities And Exchange Commission. It contained a check from a settlement for market timing from a mutual fund. All of ten dollars, Whooopie!
Karl Denninger starts with a great stat today-McDonalds is rated less likely to default on debt than the USA federal government-WOW http://market-ticker.denninger.net/
Matt Simmons is on Bloomberg tv tonight 5pm EDT (that's coming up in a few minutes after they talk about the bail-out).
You can watch online at http://www.bloomberg.com (scroll down for live tv link)
Notably Simmons confirmed that, even though a lifelong Republican, he is supporting Obama for president.
Comments on current US gasoline situation definitely worth paying attention to as well.
I didn't know that Matt Simmons had endorsed Obama.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/15/news/economy/500dollaroil_okeefe.fortune...
The prophet of $500 oil
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/26/jack-cafferty-if-sarah-pa_n_129...
Jack Cafferty: If Sarah Palin Being One Heartbeat Away "Doesn't Scare The Hell Out Of You, It Should"
That's hilarious. However, as this week's events have shown, the real problem is McCain's judgment--"What kind of dumb ass put her up there to begin with."
Palin is a fish out of water all right. It's sort of like a new millenium remake of "Scarecrow and Mrs. King", except that McCain is no Bruce Boxleitner. Actually, when I think about it, I might well vote for Bruce Boxleitner and Kate Jackson over McCain and Palin. The President is often little more than a puppet; you might as well have a good one. Boxleitner projected good solid confidence in Babylon 5: that's what we need now, unshakable baseless confidence.
Gee, I wonder if our bailout impasse will do the same?
http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSLQ43771620080926
---------------------
Cash-hungry Zimbabweans tired of political impasse
Edith Tembo sits on the pavement outside a Zimbabwean bank, tired and dejected after waiting all night to withdraw money that is barely enough to pay for her bus fare home....
---------------------
One of many highlights for ASPO-USA for me was getting to meet Jim Puplava. Pretty interesting line up for tomorrow's webcast at www.financialsense.com:
It looks like a good one. Can't wait.
I agree. It's such a pleasure to hear Jim Puplava interview people. He gives them so much time to speak, never interrupts them and only asks very intelligent, well-informed questions. Even when he obviously disagrees with their point of view, i.e. John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, he still treats them with respect. What a difference from MSM!
Hello TODers,
If Haiti gets a few more 'canes: we good be looking at the mud version of the ancient volcanic burial of Pompeii [please see the 20 photos in the link below]:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jLLIe0IJZY8R0f6dkUt3J3MgRISgD93EJD701
-----------------
Haitian city encased in mud needs global help
..Some of the muck is topsoil — precious in this deforested country — flushed from the mountains above when a river broke its banks, churned through the countryside and sliced through town before emptying into the sea.
The floods from Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike destroyed an estimated 60 percent of Haiti's food harvest.
----------------------------------
Hello TODers,
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880925111
----------------------------
Fertilizer prices shooting up
Raleigh,NC – The state agriculture department is encouraging farmers to take advantage of free soil testing to avoid spending too much on fertilizer.
Fertilizer prices are skyrocketing to more than double what they were last fall, Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler said in a release.
----------------------------
WOW! I assume this person has access to those BigBuck$ I-NPK & sulfur market forecasts that I cannot access.
Edit: this recent POT release might help explain why the AG Commish was concerned on pricing [43 page pdf warning]:
http://www.potashcorp.com/media/pdf/investor_relations/speeches/lon_anal...
I recently visited farming cousin in the Delta country of Arkansas. They're working a half-section and growing rice and soybeans about 100 mi. east of Little Rock.
The manager explained to us how they take multispectral satellite imagery and calculate which nutrients are needed in each square meter of land. The map of nutrient needs is encoded onto a memory card which plugs into the cultivator. As they traverse the field a GPS unit follows their progress and injects a calculated amount of N, P, K, Fe, and a few other micronutrients along with seeds.
Last year it cost them $500/day to run the combine. This year it's $1000/day. Such is life; they'll probably just keep farming until it's all gone. I wanted to ask him if he thought they'd ever get enough oil out of those beans to run the combine, but it just didn't come up in conversation somehow...
The people on this site are beyond praise. The information presented and scrutinized, the analysis and effort to search for meaning from divergent sources, refining and condensing it all down in a timely manner thats so benefical to anyone who yearns to understand and stay ahead.
An individual, any individual, couldnt find a better source of yesterday, today, tomorrow's major concerns for society at the local or world level...then TOD.
Dont mean to get all touchy feely or wheepy....but you folks are truely a bunch of good eggs. I wish you had some authority...I just wanted to thank the crowd here, incase things turn south faster then anyone emagined.
Petrobras has confirmed a subsalt natural gas and light oil field in the Santos Basin:
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=67103
Previously they announced Tupi and Iara in the Santos Basin might contain 8-12 billion barrels. There is also a search underway in the Angola deepwaters for a subsalt oil trend. According to the Continental Drift Theory Angola and Brazil were once part of giant continent named Pangea until a rift zone formed forcing Africa and South America apart. Sea floor spreading has been proved by magnetometer measurements of the orientation of iron minerals in basalt. The earth's magnetic poles flipped back and forth through the years. As basalt was poured out of the midsea rift system it was crystalized on cooling and the iron minerals in the basalt oriented towards the direction of the magnetic pole of that time.
i called my bank today and asked if i could take out a loan on a car. they said yes. i said can i get a mortgage for a house i want? they said, yes, with 10% to 20% down and very good credit. I said cool, then ask if there was a max amount i could borrow? yes 3 times your annual salary. so i asked about a business loan? they said sure.
so my question was i thought credit was drying up? they said no, it's the investment banks. they are holding junk nobody wants, and they want the fed to cover their losses at taxpayer expense.
so there ya have it, we are being swindled by the the prez on down. hope this bail out is stalled till we the people can see what it is. meanwhile keep those faxes and calls going. the house and senate love your calls.
Credit has dried up in places where the price of real estate has plummeted.
Man this thread went off topic. You would think the credit crisis will lead to the rise of credit unions, I haven't heard of any making a lot of risky loans. Are they in the same boat?
For years I've looked at homes and the people who were in them. I've always wondered how John Doe working at walmart or a restaurant or a factory can afford buying a $250,000-$500,000 house. I've also scratched my head when I hear that so and so's son or daughter is going to an out-of-state college majoring in communications, etc. coming out of school making $30,000. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
I went through high school and college without taking any courses in finance...that isn't good. I think part of the blame should go to the availability of government guaranteed student loans. They put kids in holes without teaching them about personal finance. You don't even have to pay a cent until you graduate...that is stupid. $40000 student loans + $250,000 mortgage + $20,000 car on a salary comparable to a teacher would be impossible to get out of in my opinion. No surprise to me this is going on.
I bet if you did a net present value analysis, 50% of college students should not be in college, or at least the college that they attend.
Just imagine how bad this would be if some of the sub-prime borrowers were actually saving for retirement.
Hello TODers,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/dining/01genius.html?ref=style
------------------------
An Urban Farmer Is Rewarded for His Dream
With a staff of about three dozen full-time workers and 2,000 residents pitching in as volunteers, his operation raises about $500,000 worth of fresh, affordable produce, meat and fish for one of what he calls the “food deserts” of American cities, where the only access to food is corner grocery stories filled with beer, cigarettes and processed foods.
Now, with a $500,000 “genius grant” that the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation awarded him on Tuesday, Mr. Allen is dreaming bigger.
------------------------------
Big Congrats to Will Allen & crew!
http://www.agrimarket.info/showart.php?id=63966
----------------------
High prices to decrease fertilizer use in Ukraine
...Since June, prices for fertilizers in Ukraine have increased by 20-40%, at the same time, prices for most grain and oilseeds have decreased by 30-40%. As a result, large numbers of agricultural enterprises will not have enough funds for purchases of fertilizers.
----------------------
Yipes! That is no way to have record harvest yields.
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2008/sep08/sep29/Doublingourcurrentfoodprodu...
--------------------
Doubling our current food production may not be enough
..The demand curve for agricultural production continues to expand. Grant estimates that in the next 40 years we will need to produce as much food as we did on this planet in the last 10,000 years.
--------------------
Seems like a hell of a Red Queen problem to me.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26904496
---------------------------------
Lending Coming To A Halt?
Credit is the lifeblood of the economy, and there are signs that credit activity is pulling back.
Agricultural stocks are down on word that fertilizer demand has been down--why?
Citigroup downgraded the [I-NPK mfg.] group on word that urea (a nitrogen product used in fertilizers) prices were down substantially on what appears to be weak demand.
Why is demand down? Traders have been speculating that the farm harvest now requires its largest seasonal financing requirements, and that farmers are having trouble getting funding.
-------------------------
Since job specialization depends upon food surpluses: you would think that farmers would be the very last group encountering funding problems from their bankers. IMO, this is not good news.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I love all these post, it is like listening to academics put out all the fine points about global warming. The statistics, The bombastic critisms, points and counter points. Simply brilliant. However, in the real world, no one in China, India, Mexico or poor nations will see, hear or care about any of this or do anything to create worse conditions for their own populations and markets The main thrust of Global Warming is to create markets in Co2 management. Both by the U.N. and western governments to increase revenues under the disguise of preventing disaster. 95% of green house gases is water. All we are looking at is variabilites of the remaining 5% and CO2 is measured in parts per million which can vary from volcanic activity, forest fires and numerous other activities that are beyound our capacity to control, just like our control of other nations. The economic folly won't just effect us poor ignorant peasants, but will trot down the ivyied halls. With all the threats to the world and America in particular, global warming arriving in 50 or 100 years is the last thing we have worry about. Survival being the first.