Wee thread drift, but relevant
My point with reference to this thread is that, on balance, I don't believe the peak oil theory and I don't believe the anthropogenic global warming theories that are espoused by essentially the same group of tree hugging feckwits.
Chuck, I agree in principle with your synopsis of Peak Oil and the commercial/political nuances that surround it.
.
The fact that Oil Supplied rather than Oil reserves available are touted as being linked, it is quite clear supply and its resulting price driven by demand are more a result of big business/cartels and political tax implications … as you have rightly mentioned in previous discussions, Tax take increases with pump price, not withstanding world oil price!
.
That said, I do take issue with
I don't believe the anthropogenic global warming theories that are espoused by essentially the same group of tree hugging feckwits.
Below are some links to data from sources that really cannot be described as tree hugging feckwits .. I have included some quotes from said links .. the bulk of scientific opinion is at one on the CO2 issue/s .. the implications of which are becoming more apparent as time goes on .. we may be experiencing very early climatic results from the CO2 rises … I am sure we all realise, it is not necessarily that Humans contribute about 3% of the annual CO2 production by burning fossil fuels that is singularly at issue .. it is the fact that the planets systems that convert (balance) the CO2 are being affected by our other activities such as deforestation as well.
.
It seems to this reader that the largest problem we face is controlling/maintaining/increasing the absorption of CO2, as the CO2 increases are already detrimentally affecting the ability of the oceans and land surface plant and soil conversion systems by the increase in surface temperatures already in place.
.
Sure the planet has cyclic variations due to orbit, solar maximum and minimum events, however all of these have been included (as far as I can see) in the calculation of the science available today.
.
The first link to New Scientist is … well … indicative IMHO
.
.. so add me to your list of tree hugging feckwits, as I believe the science, and also believe we must initiate alternatives ASAP .. does that mean I think the world should stop and revert to some sort of medieval horse draw society … no, but I do believe we (globally) must pay the MAXIMUM we can to reduce fossil fuel emissions, replace emissions in industries where the technology already exists (wind, solar, tidal even nuclear power generation etc).
.
I do not give weight to the argument that if we go clean then others like China will continue to pollute in our place … maybe they and emerging nations will, but does that give us (and the developed world) the licence to pollute in any case?
.
In principle, I think the global carbon emissions trading scheme is unavoidable … as it will be the only mechanism that will economically force polluting companies/nations to want to clean up their act!
.
It is an interesting counterbalance that whilst high oil prices hurt us all in most of what we do, it may be providing some brake to the climate issues by reducing fossil fuel emissions!
.
Atmospheric CO2 accumulating faster than ever
.
New Scientist
Until recently the biggest increases in air concentrations of carbon dioxide had always occurred during El Niño years, when tropical vegetation grows less and dried-out rainforests burn uncontrollably either through natural or manmade causes. The largest ever recorded increase, at 2.7 ppm, occurred in the El Niño year of 1998.
.
Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.
Concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
.
Carbon Dioxide Wikipedia
The latest data, as of March 2006, shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) — 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.
.
Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[4] since 1958 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements.
Variation in the past
The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280µL/L immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.
.
Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were exceeded during earlier geological epochs, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years [10] and at the same time lower than at any time in history if we look at time scales longer than 50 million years. NOAA research estimates that 97% of atmospheric CO2 created each year is from natural sources and approximately 3% is from human activities.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa
.
Mauna Loa
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon 13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the ocean.
An Overview of GFDL Climate Model Results
.
Climate Impact of Quadrupling Atmospheric CO2
.
.. in the end, the increasing cost of burning fossil fuels (pollution tax driven by damaging effects to climate, ecology and businesses codependant) may be the nail in the coffin rather than fossil fuel supply!
.
Interesting discussion though
.
Cheers
.
Dog