Global warming and bad weather

[isenhand]

The bad weather we have been experiencing in the last few years has, by some (so I have been told), been attributed to global warming. Does anyone know of an organisation / person that supports that view?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6277537.stm

[PS_RalphW]

Does anyone know of an organisation / person that supports that view?

http://environment.newscientist.com/art ... ather.html

[snow hope]

Probably most organisations - doesn't make them right though......

[Adam1]

My understanding is that we can't say with any certainty that a specific, local weather event is due to climate change; only that the probability of such events happening increases with global warming.

Climate science is not the same as weather forecasting. One is the study of long term trends and mechanisms that affect our global climate system. The other is about predicting what will happen to the weather in specific locations over the coming days and weeks. So many in the media fail to grasp the difference. And I suspect that the climate change denial industry deliberately tries to conflate the two, to sew the seeds of doubt in people's minds about the validity of the science. Their tactic is the same as that used previously by the smoking lobby.

All of us Peakers need to get behind the climate change issue, some seem to see it as a different issue that we are in competition with: Heinberg's recent Museletter on this subject is worth a read.

[isenhand]

Thanks for the help

[clv101]

All of us Peakers need to get behind the climate change issue, some seem to see it as a different issue that we are in competition with: Heinberg's recent Museletter on this subject is worth a read.

It's a good essay, well worth reading.

I find the relationship between peak oil and climate change fascinating and Heinberg picks up pretty much all the pertinent points. Here?s my take on it:

Climate change scientists consider the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and forecast the climatic results. Based on officially stated fossil fuel resources and global economic growth forecasts, the emissions paint a dire picture. Activists pick up the dire predictions and advocate proactive measures to curtail our emissions.

The depletionists however (some predisposed to environmental issues and some with little concern, dismissing the arguments for anthropogenic climate change mechanisms) instead point out that the officially stated fossil fuel resources are exaggerated and as a result the global economic growth forecasts and resulting emissions are also exaggerated.

I?m squarely with the depletionists on this one. The IPCC business as usual projections are as preposterous as the CERA oil forecasts. The science is good but the assumed inputs are garbage. The concept of global oil/gas peaks within a decade is incompatible with the ~900ppm CO2, +6C by 2100 IPCC forecast.

I?m also sceptical of any efforts to proactively reduce oil/gas consumption below that described by the depletion curve ? it?s just too useful. To suggest we can choose a level of oil/gas consumption below the depletion curve is to say that the impacts of peak oil are so trivial we would actually choose greater impacts, lesser consumption. No way. So I?m left in the position that all the oil and gas will be burnt as fast as possible, we can?t do anything about that however luckily that alone won?t spell the climate disaster the activists warn us of.

The only potential to cause climate disaster is from burning all the coal ? this is very hypothetical though as whilst there is enough carbon contained in the coal reserves do we have the logistical ability and economic demand (given peak oil/gas) to exploit it? I?m doubtful.

So, to be intellectually honest I would like to see ?climate change activists? ignore the emissions from oil/gas ? ignore cheap flights, airport expansion and SUVs and instead focus primarily on coal burn. That is electricity consumption and low/zero CO2 generation of electricity. This is an easy battle to fight as there is massive scope of reducing electricity consumption and massive potential for low/zero CO2 electricity generation. The climate change activist should also focus on land use (deforestation etc) and be mindful of the depletionists points and theoretical threat of non-conventional fossil fuels.

The ?depletionists? on the other hand should primarily focus on energy security, that is minimising the loss of energy services as oil and gas availability decreases. This involves reducing the oil/gas intensity of what we do and where the anti-SUV, pro-light rail, reduced ?economic reliance? on flying etc arguments should be made. Whilst supply side solutions based on non-conventional fossil fuels are likely to be considered, the depletionist should remain mindful the CO2 intensity of such solutions ? in any event non-conventional fossil fuels are unlikely to prove viable or amount to anything significant.

There is perhaps a difference between being an intellectually honest activist and being an effective activist though! As the general public and politicians accept CO2 as ?bad? and as increasing flying being a significant source of increasing emissions the depletionist campaigning for reduced economic reliance on flying could cite CO2 emissions to add weight to their argument... however I don?t see that as totally intellectually honest!

[Totally_Baffled]

All of us Peakers need to get behind the climate change issue, some seem to see it as a different issue that we are in competition with: Heinberg's recent Museletter on this subject is worth a read.

It's a good essay, well worth reading.

I find the relationship between peak oil and climate change fascinating and Heinberg picks up pretty much all the pertinent points. Here?s my take on it:

Climate change scientists consider the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and forecast the climatic results. Based on officially stated fossil fuel resources and global economic growth forecasts, the emissions paint a dire picture. Activists pick up the dire predictions and advocate proactive measures to curtail our emissions.

The depletionists however (some predisposed to environmental issues and some with little concern, dismissing the arguments for anthropogenic climate change mechanisms) instead point out that the officially stated fossil fuel resources are exaggerated and as a result the global economic growth forecasts and resulting emissions are also exaggerated.

I?m squarely with the depletionists on this one. The IPCC business as usual projections are as preposterous as the CERA oil forecasts. The science is good but the assumed inputs are garbage. The concept of global oil/gas peaks within a decade is incompatible with the ~900ppm CO2, +6C by 2100 IPCC forecast.

I?m also sceptical of any efforts to proactively reduce oil/gas consumption below that described by the depletion curve ? it?s just too useful. To suggest we can choose a level of oil/gas consumption below the depletion curve is to say that the impacts of peak oil are so trivial we would actually choose greater impacts, lesser consumption. No way. So I?m left in the position that all the oil and gas will be burnt as fast as possible, we can?t do anything about that however luckily that alone won?t spell the climate disaster the activists warn us of.

The only potential to cause climate disaster is from burning all the coal ? this is very hypothetical though as whilst there is enough carbon contained in the coal reserves do we have the logistical ability and economic demand (given peak oil/gas) to exploit it? I?m doubtful.

So, to be intellectually honest I would like to see ?climate change activists? ignore the emissions from oil/gas ? ignore cheap flights, airport expansion and SUVs and instead focus primarily on coal burn. That is electricity consumption and low/zero CO2 generation of electricity. This is an easy battle to fight as there is massive scope of reducing electricity consumption and massive potential for low/zero CO2 electricity generation. The climate change activist should also focus on land use (deforestation etc) and be mindful of the depletionists points and theoretical threat of non-conventional fossil fuels.

The ?depletionists? on the other hand should primarily focus on energy security, that is minimising the loss of energy services as oil and gas availability decreases. This involves reducing the oil/gas intensity of what we do and we where the anti-SUV, pro-light rail, reduced ?economic reliance? on flying etc arguments should be made. Whilst supply side solutions based on non-conventional fossil fuels are likely to be considered, the depletionist should remain mindful the CO2 intensity of such solutions ? in any event non-conventional fossil fuels are unlikely to prove viable or amount to anything significant.

There is perhaps a difference between being an intellectually honest activist and being an effective activist though! As the general public and politicians accept CO2 as ?bad? and as increasing flying being a significant source of increasing emissions the depletionist campaigning for reduced economic reliance on flying could site CO2 emissions to add weight to their argument... however I don?t see that as totally intellectually honest!

Good Post

[biffvernon]

There ought to be an award for seriously good posts.

(Proudly biased dad)

[Adam1]

I agree with Chris too. Peak oil and climate change, when taken together, are mutually reinforcing. The power of the arguments for action that tackles both problems should make it more likely that the necessary concerted action is taken urgently. I like Heinberg's point that we need to act "carefully, intelligently & co-operatively" if we are to get through the next century.

[LouiseRouse]

On Newsnight last night, on a report about Tesco putting Carbon-Calorie labels on its food, the reporter brought up the following point - Will the green activists of the world achieve their aims more successfully through reform or through revolution?

Your intellectually honest outlook seems to be supremely pessimistic about reform. I *think* you agree that emissions from oil and gas have to be curbed from present day consumption levels, but is the best way to go about that really just to let depletion take care of it? I would have thought the hybrid peak-oil-climate-change enlightened activist should ideally want people to choose behavioural change rather than have peak-oil and associated economic plight force it upon them. Again this hinges on your position and degree of optimisim with regard reform vs revolution. Oil and gas depletion will be the revolution in that it will defy consent about curtailing use voluntarily. Is it too much to hope that reformation could allow us to consent to using less?

Also...

Is it definitive that the sources you do go by on global oil and gas reserves will not cause CO2 equivalents to go above the recommended 550 parts per million? What if the more pessimistic 440 parts per million is the tipping point? Forgive my ignorance

The only potential to cause climate disaster is from burning all the coal ? this is very hypothetical though as whilst there is enough carbon contained in the coal reserves do we have the logistical ability and economic demand (given peak oil/gas) to exploit it? I?m doubtful.

Again, forgive my ignorance - why would peak oil/gas affect our ability to exploit coal as we weren't using significant amounts of either when we first started mining and exploiting coal?

[XENG]

Again, forgive my ignorance - why would peak oil/gas affect our ability to exploit coal as we weren't using significant amounts of either when we first started mining and exploiting coal?

Because digging stuff out of the ground (in large quantities) is heavily reliant upon machines that run on oil.
Thats also why i dont see nuclear making a comeback post peak.

[isenhand]

Just talking about global warming, this I thought was interesting:

People in Britain will have to alter every aspect of the way they live in an effort to prevent climate change, David Miliband warned today.

[PS_RalphW]

I also agree with Chris, but I can't help thinking more generally on the 'limits to growth' theme. Specifically continued global economic and population growth are accelerating damage to the global environment, even on the short timescales before peak oil/gas constrain them.

Both US and China ARE massively expanding coal burn, and I can't see
Asia cutting back on palm oil plantations just because of bleeding heart
Western conservationists. Reports today suggest that CO2 levels are
accelerating, perhaps because some environmental 'tipping point' has already been passed. Most climate change models show the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS forest warming
and drying significantly in the next few decades, and ecologists warn that
this could lead to devastating forests fires, and further, irreversible CO2 release as the forest burns to the ground.

I can see perhaps Western coal burn being reduced or at least constrained as (in particular the US) goes over the edge into PO
economic decline, I can't see the same in Asia as the world stands now.

I see preserving habitat, particularly rainforest, as our most pressing
concern in this senario.

[XENG]

People in Britain will have to alter every aspect of the way they live in an effort to prevent climate change, David Miliband warned today.

Except flying less and eating local organic food apparently.

[Adam1]

Again this hinges on your position and degree of optimisim with regard reform vs revolution

I think what the peak oil perspective brings to this is that the expected rate of decline in oil production from ca. 2010 will force profoundly stressful changes such that the reform vs revolution debate will be replaced by the how-best-to-manage-the-imposed-decline debate.

Our options are narrowing with every day that we delay. If, as seems likely, we don't act until a crisis hits, like the gas shortage last winter, we'll find ourselves turning to coal to stave off the immediate crisis, only to add to the seemingly less urgent climate change crisis. Once oil/gas decline gets underway, we will only achieve an even faster decline rate in our oil and gas consumption if the global economy is so traumatised by the decline up to that point, that subsequent demand drops off. In this scenario, behaviour change is likely to be less constructive than those that the non-peak oil aware climate change campaigner are currently advocating.