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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euan

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

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

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

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

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

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

RC

Deleted accidental double post.

RC

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

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

Command
Control
Coordination
Communication
Cooperation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RC

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

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

Thus electricity will be in high demand.

...dates are desirable too...

Retsel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virgin Atlantic flying jets on nut oil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RC

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

I am coming to this same realization.

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

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

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

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

dont know

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

Why should you be surprised?

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

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

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

Robert Heilbroner had this to say on the subject:

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

Robert L. Heilbroner, Behind the Veil of Economics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L,
Sid.

This answer applies to many comments alike:

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

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

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

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

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

We HAVE to do something about fossil fuels

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

ERoEI * 128? Awesome!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do we educate them and stop them doing this?

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

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

Sares - as your link points out this is more commonly known as Jevon's paradox. Your interpretation is pretty well aligned with my own here.

With abundant energy, energy efficiency leads us to use more - most likely because efficient use keeps the cost down.

In an energy constrained world, energy efficiency may allow us to survive at a reasonable standard and most certainly at a better standard than if we were inefficient.

Another couple of thoughts. Countries that are most energy efficient will be able to pay the most and outbid inefficient countries for dwindling supplies.

The same applies to individuals. Those who need to use little energy because of efficient use will afford it much more easily. A quirk in the tail is that energy efficiency costs money to install. And we will end up very quickly I think with an energy poor underclass spending vast sums trying to heat their homes, and still being cold while the more more wealthy can invest in energy saving goods and then easily afford the lesser amounts of energy they require to remain comfortable.

Energy poverty is very much in the news here, but the government seems incapable of joining the dots.

Dear Mr Hagen,
I for one, appreciated your well tempered post. I have no PhD., am not a scientist, and do not specialise in any of the areas herein.

However, I am also not stupid. I attempt at least to think rationally, and desire empirical scientifically tested proofs before I believe anything.

Sometimes this is difficult. In court cases, each side may appoint their own expert witnesses. By definition, their arguments will be opposed. The result, often, is that his honour the Judge will direct that both testimonies be set aside.

A most unpleasant aspect of some posts stemming from this main article, is the stridency of the moral indignation which characterises so many of the posts from those who believe in dangerous man-made global warming. I recently gave a public talk on wind turbines, the other side took a similar approach. Such an approach is recognisable in religions.

After reading and considering both sides, one inevitably begins to drift toward a belief than one case is the stronger. Take the two issues of for example, global warming, and the move toward wind turbines.

It seems to me that before progress may be made, the first hurdles must be identified and crossed. In my non-scientific, but I hope mature, view in these two cases the first hurdles are -
1) is it yet proven conclusively that any putative warming trends are outside of the historic standard deviations? and 2) in the case of wind turbines, is it true that for every 100Mw of installed wind, some 90Mw of EXTRA back up is required?

As yet, even these do not appear decided. If we cannot yet agree these, then surely the appropriate response is simply further enquiry and discussion, not haranguing one another?

At the same time, simply because oil is uniquely energy dense, and irreplaceable, at least for the modes of transport which support our current life-styles, we would be wise to assume the worst. And even with no scientific qualification it seems patently obvious that in a conflict between energy consumption constraints and the supposed global warming, the urgent must for a while take precedence. Where there is not conflict, there is no problem.

It is not the world we are trying to save; it is us. The world will be fine. Life will continue to find its vectors, and does not need us. Life appears not to care for having all its eggs in one basket - unlike us.

Hi Sharon,
I hope that you found my response to your previous comment on the EROI of nuclear power, and why I do not have much faith in the figures bandied about responsive.

On the subject at hand, whilst it would be convenient if the difference on GW could be finessed, this does not seem to me to answer the case.

Clean coal technology need not detain us, as it does not exist at the moment, but if you feel that CO2 emissions do not cause GW, then you would advocate very different policies to if you do.
In the US this would likely include support for coal burn, which is much cheaper if emissions are discounted than any of the alternatives save NG, and in the UK might focus on in-situ coal combustion.
Reserves for this are very large, and also have some possibility of maybe combining it with sequestration in some form, so the dispute might not be absolute.
However, we don't know how to do this at the moment.

To clarify my own position, I accept the consensus on GW, and am simply rather irritated by the use of language in a purportedly scientific debate such as 'GW denier', which is used specifically to restrict debate without in itself being other than polemic.
Much of the comment from people who are as untrained as myself in the subject is both absolute and immoderate.
The degree of precision with which models can be relied on seems to me to be greatly exaggerated, in what is after all a complex and chaotic system.

That is in fact one of the frightening things about climate, as it is very clear that major sudden changes have taken place even without any influence from man.

The issue of man-made GW can't be swept under the carpet though, as it presents real choices depending on how it is viewed.

My own feeling with the information that is currently to hand is that renewables, nuclear and conservation is the way to go.
The choices are real ones, and Euan and others should tell it as they think it is, not adopt a political line couched to produce a program, in the unlikely event that business and political leaders are going to action anything at all to counter either peak oil or GW.

Oy, vey.

Your work on Global Warming is pretty much right on target.

On the contrary, I think Euan's position on GW is quite wrong. However, I agree with the conclusion he draws from this, namely that we should focus on energy efficiency over emissions reduction. As he notes, it amounts to the same thing.

First, global warming is good, not bad.

I don't think you've thought this through. How much warming is good before it becomes bad? Heat and drought go together unless water for irrigation is available. Please go and start a farm in a desert and tell me how you get on.

Higher average temperatures together with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduce crop failures and improve crop, grazing and forest production.

Average higher temperatures make icecaps and glaciers melt. The former causes sea level rise, coastal inundation and contamination of potable aqueous reservoirs. The latter adds slightly to sea level rise, and reduced river outflows and therefore a threat to fresh water supplies.

Increased carbon dioxide can lead to increased growth. But can also lead to suppression of root growth. Here is the abstract (my emphasis) from

"Grassland Responses to Global Environmental Changes Suppressed by Elevated CO₂", Science, Vol 298, pp 1987.

Simulated global changes, including warming, increased precipitation, and nitrogen deposition, alone and in concert, increased net primary production (NPP) in the third year of ecosystem-scale manipulations in a California annual grassland. Elevated carbon dioxide also increased NPP, but only as a single-factor treatment. Across all multifactor manipulations, elevated carbon dioxide suppressed root allocation, decreasing the positive effects of increased temperature, precipitation, and nitrogen deposition on NPP. The NPP responses to interacting global changes differed greatly from simple combinations of single-factor responses. These findings indicate the importance of a multifactor experimental approach to understanding ecosystem responses to global change.