Peak oil and government question

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 10 Oct 2005, 13:47

MacG wrote: The current global economic order will not be able to survive many years of decline in oil extraction.

Exactly how things pan out will I think depend a lot on what the decline rate for all hydrocarbons is on the other side of global peak, and when that happens. Ive no idea, and I dont think anybody else has either, as global peak ( as opposed to the local peaks we've already seen) will be a unique event.

I certainly dont subscribe to the extreme doomsters view that we'll all wake up one morning and suddenly "Peak Oil! " - then by next Tuesday I'll be eating Uncle Albert. This will I think play out over several decades. There is after all still a trillion or so barrels of black stuff to extract, even if at an ever decreasing rate of flow...

I agree with those who say that the geologically constrained peak is something we will only ever be able to identify with the benefit of hindsight. I dont think we'll be certain its happened till about ten years or so after the event, as there are of course other reasons why global consumption can temporarily decline. We've seen that before.

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 10 Oct 2005, 13:56

MacG wrote: I worry significantly more about future personal freezing than anthropogenic global warming.

Nah! you love it up there... I can tell ...all that rolling around in the snow and spanking eachother with birch twigs...

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 10 Oct 2005, 16:31

skeptik, if there's more sunspots then this creates more solar wind. If there's more solar wind apparently this has the effect of there being less clouds all over the globe. Less cloud cover equals more sunshine getting to the planet... and the earth will warm up more.

GD · Post by GD » 10 Oct 2005, 17:33

bigjim wrote:Erm, yes, it'd be pretty difficult to replace the market with something else. Not sure how to answer this one. I've got far away dreams of setting up a socialist utopia but it'd never happen

<Apologies for being a bit late on this one>

Jim,
Take a look at this page:
www.globaljusticemovement.net/home/comparisons.htm

There's better ways of doing things!

What's needed is more people on board to get there.

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 10 Oct 2005, 17:36

Thanks GD- I'll bookmark that one!

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 10 Oct 2005, 19:08

bigjim wrote:skeptik, if there's more sunspots then this creates more solar wind. If there's more solar wind apparently this has the effect of there being less clouds all over the globe. Less cloud cover equals more sunshine getting to the planet... and the earth will warm up more.

Interesting... this is not something Ive looked into. Only came across the factoid about the suns increased activity a while ago.

Whats the link between solar wind strength and cloud cover supposed to be? A link to a source on that would be nice, if you have one.

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 11 Oct 2005, 12:57

Try looking at these two sources for starters, I'll try and get you some more later skeptik

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

http://www.earthsky.com/shows/edgeofdis ... e=20030620

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 11 Oct 2005, 15:12

bigjim wrote:Try looking at these two sources for starters, I'll try and get you some more later skeptik

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/CREC.html

http://www.earthsky.com/shows/edgeofdis ... e=20030620

Thanks. That will do nicely if you're bizzy... very interesting.

So...cosmic rays as a nucleating agent, maybe. hmm.

bigjim · Post by **bigjim** » 11 Oct 2005, 22:11

Some more stuff for you skeptik

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6680 (How sunspot activity affects wheat prices)

http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm (this one's been written by a pro-Bush republican so take it with a pinch of salt)

http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0613022.htm

Just try punching "cloud cover" and "solar wind" or "sunspot activity" into Google and you'll get loads more info

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 11 Oct 2005, 23:15

bigjim wrote:Some more stuff for you skeptik
...this one's been written by a pro-Bush republican so take it with a pinch of
http://unisci.com/stories/20022/0613022.htm

Thanks for the links...
I dont pay any attention to peoples politics or who's paying their mealticket. I'm only interested in whether they're talking bollocks or not.

for example... Mathew Simmons is the ultimate pro-Bush Republican, but all sorts of people have been paying close attention to what hes been saying about depletion , reserves data and Saudi oil fields.