global warming is not human caused paper

Post by **clv101** » 12 Oct 2007, 14:41

Are you suffering from amnesia on purpose? You know perfectly well how I?ve considered it ? refer back to our past conversations on this forum or the three articles I?ve written about this specific issue on The Oil Drum.

Cabrone · Post by **Cabrone** » 12 Oct 2007, 14:48

MacG, what if we've already passed the point of no return? That's what Prof Tim Flannery is saying in a soon to be published report, and what the real gut wrenching point is, we reached it in 2005.

Acclaimed author and scientist Tim Flannery said results of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis report, due for release next month, show that since 2005 Australia has already been producing the amount of greenhouse gases expected a decade away.

"What (the report) says is we already stand a risk of unacceptable climate change and that the need for action is ever more urgent," Professor Flannery told ABC television.

"We thought we would be at that threshold within about a decade ... but the new data indicates that in about mid-2005 we crossed that threshold.

"As of mid-2005 there was about 455 parts per million of what's called carbon dioxide equivalent, and that's a figure that's gathered by taking the potential of all 30 greenhouse gases and converting them into carbon dioxide potential."

Too Late

That would make your argment redundant.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 12 Oct 2007, 14:51

clv101 wrote:Are you suffering from amnesia on purpose? You know perfectly well how I?ve considered it ? refer back to our past conversations on this forum or the three articles I?ve written about this specific issue on The Oil Drum.

I have seen them but I fail to understand them. The question I have is very, very simple and it should be possible to answer in a very, very simple way.

If the IPCC is right about future availability of oil and gas, then the ASPO is wrong. Either of them MUST be wrong. They are mutually exclusive.

Who is most right (or least wrong)? The IPCC or ASPO?

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 12 Oct 2007, 14:57

Cabrone wrote:MacG, what if we've already passed the point of no return? That's what Prof Tim Flannery is saying in a soon to be published report, and what the real gut wrenching point is, we reached it in 2005.
That would make your argment redundant.

If the geological limits on oil and gas extraction show some similarity with the estimates from the ASPO, then we will see a rather rapid decline in CO2 emissions. Faster than prescribed by the Kyoto protocol. The IPCC have not considered any geological restrictions when assembling their models, and that (among other things) makes them fundamentally flawed.

Post by **clv101** » 12 Oct 2007, 15:54

MacG wrote:
clv101 wrote:Are you suffering from amnesia on purpose? You know perfectly well how I?ve considered it ? refer back to our past conversations on this forum or the three articles I?ve written about this specific issue on The Oil Drum.
I have seen them but I fail to understand them. The question I have is very, very simple and it should be possible to answer in a very, very simple way.

If the IPCC is right about future availability of oil and gas, then the ASPO is wrong. Either of them MUST be wrong. They are mutually exclusive.

Who is most right (or least wrong)? The IPCC or ASPO?

The IPCC are clearly wrong on their projections for future fossil fuel use - We won't be emitting 4 times as much CO2 in 2100 as we are today!

That shouldn't be news to anyone around here. However ASPO oil and gas reserves do not prevent anthropogenic climate change being critically serious. Look at Hansen's work - he's a peak oiler, seriously worried about climate change and no fool. Peak oil and climate change are no mutually exclusive.

Post by **clv101** » 12 Oct 2007, 15:56

MacG wrote:
Cabrone wrote:MacG, what if we've already passed the point of no return? That's what Prof Tim Flannery is saying in a soon to be published report, and what the real gut wrenching point is, we reached it in 2005.
That would make your argment redundant.
If the geological limits on oil and gas extraction show some similarity with the estimates from the ASPO, then we will see a rather rapid decline in CO2 emissions. Faster than prescribed by the Kyoto protocol. The IPCC have not considered any geological restrictions when assembling their models, and that (among other things) makes them fundamentally flawed.

You didn't actually address Cabrone's question...

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 12 Oct 2007, 16:09

MacG wrote:
syberberg wrote:There's a perfectly good reason why the IPCC aren't using any predictions of future fossil fuel use, either increased or decreased usage. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out why.
I fail to understand this statement. The predictions from the IPCC are very clear - various degrees of increased use of oil and gas for at least a hundred years to come. Is there any other way to interpret figure 2a on p7?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/sres-e.pdf

There is no figure 2a on p7, do you mean table 2a on p20?

Also I point at the following from the IPCC report:

A set of scenarios was developed to represent the range of
driving forces and emissions in the scenario literature so as to
reflect current understanding and knowledge about underlying
uncertainties. They exclude only outlying ?surprise? or
?disaster? scenarios in the literature. Any scenario necessarily
includes subjective elements and is open to various
interpretations. Preferences for the scenarios presented here
vary among users. No judgment is offered in this Report as to
the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not
assigned probabilities of occurrence, neither must they be
interpreted as policy recommendations.

(Emphasis mine) That means they have excluded peak oil as it would be considered a "disaster scenario", for obvious reasons. I fail to see why you have such a problem with this.

All their scenarios assume continued economic growth and population growth, with a reduction in population in scenarios A1 and B1.

If the IPCC are getting their figures for future oil and gas production from OPEC and the oil industry in general, what do you expect? We all know OPEC have been telling lies through their back teeth about their reserves for years.

Cabrone · Post by **Cabrone** » 12 Oct 2007, 16:15

Apparently RealClimate have covered the Flannery claim (posted above) here.

RC Link

Seems that they are saying that although we are at 460ppmv equiv, the actual 'net forcing' of all of these gases is actually the equivalent of 375ppmv and we still have room to manoeuvre (phew).

Smithy · Post by **Smithy** » 12 Oct 2007, 16:35

Surely if the IPCC put too much emphasis on trying to second guess Peak Oil, at the same time as reporting their predictions for Global Warming, the result would be a nightmare of probabilities which few would appreciate?

It is true that they are 2 very important highly interrelated issues..., but I don't believe we should expect the IPCC to enter the Peak Oil debate (at this stage). For all we know, a new (as yet undiscovered) technology could allow us to convert coal/tar sands for use in existing vehicles...

However, governments should be aware of both issues, and they should be working towards a solution...

grinu · Post by **grinu** » 12 Oct 2007, 17:40

MacG - just so I can grasp where you're coming from, please can you explain succintly and without bias:

Why does the fact that IPCC use 'official' figures in their calculations mean that the principles they put forward are completely wrong? In reality the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of peak oil could significantly rise as alternative sources of energy are used (methane hydrates, coal, deforestation, waste to energy, tar shale etc.) in place of gas and oil.

Maybe as a result of peak oil we should be more worried about the implications of climate change predicted by IPPC models, rather than simply discounting the entire issue with a sweep of the arm.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Oct 2007, 18:33

Ssshhhh. MacG turns into a troll whenever he hears someone mention climate change

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 12 Oct 2007, 19:00

grinu wrote:MacG - just so I can grasp where you're coming from, please can you explain succintly and without bias:

Why does the fact that IPCC use 'official' figures in their calculations mean that the principles they put forward are completely wrong? In reality the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of peak oil could significantly rise as alternative sources of energy are used (methane hydrates, coal, deforestation, waste to energy, tar shale etc.) in place of gas and oil.

Maybe as a result of peak oil we should be more worried about the implications of climate change predicted by IPPC models, rather than simply discounting the entire issue with a sweep of the arm.

I have to say that I get very confused by everyone who argues on this subject. Here's grinu making the claim that CO2 will probably rise with PO and yet clv101 stated a few weeks ago that PO will result in peak CO2.

Who's right here?

Aurora · Post by **Aurora** » 12 Oct 2007, 19:16

Who cares as long as we all start to reduce our dependence on oil.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Oct 2007, 20:21

O-oh...http://www.alternet.org/environment/64735/

Post by **clv101** » 12 Oct 2007, 20:25

grinu wrote:In reality the amount of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of peak oil could significantly rise as alternative sources of energy are used (methane hydrates, coal, deforestation, waste to energy, tar shale etc.) in place of gas and oil.

I don't think there are the production rates in the alternatives to conventional oil to allow CO2 to increase significantly post peak. There could be a bit of a lag (peak CO2 happening a few years after peak oil) but not at a significantly higher level.

With peak oil two things happen - total liquids production falls (unless you think tar sands and coal to liquids will maintain 90+mbpd

) and the average CO2 intensity of the liquid will increase. My money is on the production falls more than compensating for the CO2 intensity increase.

Hence peak oil is good news for climate change.