What if there is no Global Warming?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

See, made you look!!

I know there are voices, including some here that deny that human activities are making a significant contribution to global warming. I also know that the oil industry in the US lobbies heavily against moves to curtail fossil fuel use.

What I don't understand is that this seems to be a proxy fight that simply ignores the more fundamental and uncontroversial fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Regardless of their contribution to global warming, fossil fuels will run out and at some point we need to get used to that fact.

So, are the Global Warming refuseniks also denying that we'll run out of fossil fuels, or do they think we'll run out of them eventually but depletion will occur on a much slower timescale than any voluntary curtailment of use that is being asked for to control global warming, or is that lobby just temporising in the face of the demands to reduce fossil fuel use without any conscious thought about their ultimate finiteness?

Given that oil will run out, don't the giant oil companies have a long term financial incentive to help reduce oil consumption thereby hiking prices and preserving their profitable exploitation of that resource for as long as possible?

30 years ago the oil was going to run out in 30 years. It hasn't yet, but it will do.

 

[Drooper]

See, made you look!!

I know there are voices, including some here that deny that human activities are making a significant contribution to global warming. I also know that the oil industry in the US lobbies heavily against moves to curtail fossil fuel use.

What I don't understand is that this seems to be a proxy fight that simply ignores the more fundamental and uncontroversial fact that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Regardless of their contribution to global warming, fossil fuels will run out and at some point we need to get used to that fact.

So, are the Global Warming refuseniks also denying that we'll run out of fossil fuels, or do they think we'll run out of them eventually but depletion will occur on a much slower timescale than any voluntary curtailment of use that is being asked for to control global warming, or is that lobby just temporising in the face of the demands to reduce fossil fuel use without any conscious thought about their ultimate finiteness?

Given that oil will run out, don't the giant oil companies have a long term financial incentive to help reduce oil consumption thereby hiking prices and preserving their profitable exploitation of that resource for as long as possible?

30 years ago the oil was going to run out in 30 years. It hasn't yet, but it will do.

Why the epithets? "refusenik", "deniers" ?

It seems a little strange to try and link these two issues together. Why do you try and do that?

Anthropogenic global warming:

Claim: The global mean temperature is increasing.
Response: There is some evidence that is true over the recent past, but the data is not as precise as inferred and mean global temperatures rise and fall anyway. (there is still no satisfactory explanation why global temperatures were falling from the 1940s until the 1980s. In all, the evidence is not particularly strong that we are witnessing unprecedented temperature changes.

Claim: Human activities increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is the cause of rising temperatures.
Response: This claim stands up only on the evidence of GLobal Climate Models. These models produce such a wide range of results and output that in many important areas is completely contrary to observed data. (e.g. they predict the poles should be warming dramatically, but they are cooling). Moreover, these models are an attempt to proxy climatic interactions, but these are far to complex for us to do so. (hence the weak results).

Claim: We need to reduce CO2 emissions to avert global disaster.
Response.: Again these claims rest on model output alone (see above). Even worse, these models are pumped with ludicrously pessimistic assumption about CO2 emissions (see Henderson).
Secondly they are based onvarious studies of local impacts of "climate change", but our ability to predict localised change is far far worse than our inability to predict global trends. Third, there is never proper consideration of cost. The cost of Kyoto alone is estimated to be thousands of billions of Dollars in todays terms. Kyoto's proponents even admit that the impact of adhering to Kyoto would not even be discernable. Lets spens our money on more important things like getting clean water to the people who need it or eradicate unecessary diseases in poor countries.


That is that. Nothing more.


Running out of fossil fuels.

I would make the same demands of you that I would to Andrew Wakefield on the issue of MMR causing autism. You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

 

[RamblingOnwards]

If we're talking about fossil fuels purely as an energy source, then the 'running out' will be a non event - s it becomes more and more expensive to extract fossil fuels (since the cheap sources are tapped first), use of them for energy will become more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, the alternate sources will become cheaper in comparison. At some point it'll become uneconimical, and we'll stop using fossil fuels.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

At some point it'll become uneconimical, and we'll stop using fossil fuels.

Spot on.


Drooper
Great post.


Well. i would love to have something else to contribute... but.. Well. you two just said it all

 

[drkitten]

If we're talking about fossil fuels purely as an energy source, then the 'running out' will be a non event - s it becomes more and more expensive to extract fossil fuels (since the cheap sources are tapped first), use of them for energy will become more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, the alternate sources will become cheaper in comparison. At some point it'll become uneconimical, and we'll stop using fossil fuels.

.... which isn't necessarily a good thing. Energy is, figuratively and almost literally, the fuel for the global economy. The reason that the "alternative" fuel sources aren't currently used is because they're expensive -- and raising the price of fossil fuel to be even more expensive will not by itself drop the price of hydrogen, or solar power, or unobtainium, at all.

Many activities that are practical and even profitable with the current price of oil will no longer be, which will have substantial effects. Just as a simple example, consider commuting distance. USA Today describes "the fastest-growing segment of commuters" in the United States, those who drive ninety minutes or more to get to work. In some cases, that's 400+ miles per day, probably taking 15+ (US) gallons of gasoline. At $2 per gallon, that would cost $600/month in fuel alone. If fuel rose to $5/gallon, that would cost $1500, or nearly $20,000 per year. A much smaller number of people would be able to afford this -- the bedroom communities such as the Lehigh Valley (near New York City), Dulles, VA (near Washington, DC) or Palmdale (near Los Angeles) would collapse unless people make major investments in transportation infrastructure.

So "global warming" isn't necessary for people to be concerned about the long-term effects of oil consumption.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

new drkitten
Well, true.. shifting to alternative energy will have an impact on the economy..

But, postponing the point when we shift to alternative won't really change the impact on the economy.

Postponing can make the impact less.... IF we prepare in time. That is.. if we perfect the methods before.. so the alternative methods are cheaper WHEN we need to implement it on a global setting.

It will also make the point when it is economically feasible to change happen sooner.

 

[drkitten]

[P]ostponing the point when we shift to alternative won't really change the impact on the economy.

Postponing can make the impact less.... IF we prepare in time.

Yup.

That is.. if we perfect the methods before.. so the alternative methods are cheaper WHEN we need to implement it on a global setting.

And in many cases, for "cheaper" read "available in practice." If we were to run out of oil tomorrow, for example, we do have examples of practical electric cars available. Had we run out of oil ten years ago, that wouldn't have been the case, and our "alternative transportation methods" would have had unbelievably high costs. Similarly, if oil and coal run out tomorrow, we literally don't have the infrastructure to replace the energy they generate, by any alternative method, and it remains an open question whether there are alternative methods available that could generate the necessary power, even if the infrastructure were wished into existence. (For example, it takes more energy, using current technology, to create a solar cell than a solar cell will typically generate in its life. Every solar cell manufactured is a net loss on planet's energy budget.) Twenty years from now, if/when fusion research finally achieves breakeven, the situation will be different.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Re: Re: What if there is no Global Warming?

Why the epithets? "refusenik", "deniers" ?

It seems a little strange to try and link these two issues together. Why do you try and do that?

Oh, for pity's sake, get a sense of humour and get over yourself.

Why did I link the topics? Read the post. The solution proposed to both problems is to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels and find replacements. They have their solutions in common. For some reason only Global Warming is being discussed, whereas 20 or 30 years ago it had not been heard of but the finiteness of fossil fuel reserves drove a lot of the environmental agenda.

Now, if you'd like to apologise and answer more reasonably I'd be grateful.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Re: Re: What if there is no Global Warming?

Claim: The global mean temperature is increasing.
Response: There is some evidence that is true over the recent past, but the data is not as precise as inferred and mean global temperatures rise and fall anyway.

If you wish to descend from your high horse for a moment, you might want to confirm the difference between inferred and implied. Do you really mean that the data are inferred?

You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

Oh, I don't know, the finite size of the planet? All I said was finite. I did not suggest a timescale. A reasonable answer might have included a consideration of that. I simply do not know what the various views currently are.

Before you launch into ridiculous attack mode again, you might want to consider how your answer would read to someone who ventured onto this forum not expecting to be set upon by the local junkyard dogs.

I asked a simple set of questions, it would be nice to see answers that avoid self-aggrandising polemic.

 

[Bikewer]

Diane Rehm had a show on this very topic this morning. The primary guest was pointing out that the impact of sharply increased prices for fossil fuel may well be quite a blow to the world's economies, and very little appears to be happening to adress it.

He pointed out that energy-policy drafts being prepared by both the House and the Senate have essentially nothing to say about decreasing consumption.

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The point is that it doesnt matter if there is global warming or not. Some technologies are unfriendly to the environment. Thats idiotic, absurd, lame, you name it. Still, some groups of humans will not discontinue its use because, for them, economic interests are stronger than any other thing in this world.

Besides, anyone with enough power and money can buy whatever results they want. As climate science is not an exact science, they can manipulate the studies to "demonstrate" whatever they need, in order to continue their business model.

On another area, thats what happens to the RIAA, as long as they can continue to make money, why on earth should they allow other models for the artists to reach their public?

Certainly the problem is complex, but as I said, it should not be matter of if it is happening or not, but about how idiotic is to continue to use some kind of technologies, specially if now we can have alternatives that are friendlier to our planet.

 

[El_Spectre]

Still, some groups of humans will not discontinue its use because, for them, economic interests are stronger than any other thing in this world.

This is as things should be... competition for scarse resourses. It actually drives us toward efficiency.

Certainly the problem is complex, but as I said, it should not be matter of if it is happening or not, but about how idiotic is to continue to use some kind of technologies, specially if now we can have alternatives that are friendlier to our planet.

Not idiotic... all technological advancement takes time. Were steam locomotives builders stupid? No, while alternatives existed, they weren't feasible on a large scale yet. Now they are (por ejemplo, diesel/electric), and we're moving towards even better techs (say, maglev).

I understand your frustration, but you should understand that people aren't always concerned with maximum efficiency or environmental friendliness. They are mostly concerned with surviving and making babies.

This is an OK situation. Growing populations demand efficiency and advancement, which ultimately drives us forward technologically.

Have we done damage to the environment? Sure, but it's nowhere near the doomsday scenario that many extreme environmentalists would have you believe. In fact, we're getting better in many cases. I live in LA, and the air is noticably cleaner in the last 20 years, and records show it is FAR better than it was in the 50's, for example.

(As a side note just to annoy folks: We have an alternative to oil for a whole lot of uses... it's called fission and we've had it for 50 years. Politics have curtailed its use, but high oil prices (and safer nuclear technology) are moving us towards it again. This is probably a good thing)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is as things should be... competition for scarse resourses. It actually drives us toward efficiency.

Not idiotic... all technological advancement takes time...

I understand your frustration, but you should understand that people aren't always concerned with maximum efficiency or environmental friendliness. They are mostly concerned with surviving and making babies...

You are right, and I thank you the tone. Yes, Im frustrated about it, and maybe my tone was angry because of that. But as there are individuals (like me) who value other things more than money, there are also others that consider it the most important thing on life. I should learn to deal with that. And also to learn that the world is complex, very complex, and that, sometimes, our personal points of view lack the adecuate perspective to express a more valid opinion.

Thanks for reminding me that.

 

[Anders]

new drkitten
Well, true.. shifting to alternative energy will have an impact on the economy..

But, postponing the point when we shift to alternative won't really change the impact on the economy.

Postponing can make the impact less.... IF we prepare in time. That is.. if we perfect the methods before.. so the alternative methods are cheaper WHEN we need to implement it on a global setting.

It will also make the point when it is economically feasible to change happen sooner.

Nah, I don't think that changing to any other energy form will change the economy in any major way. "Why, Anders, are you so naive you believe such stupid things?". Well, market economy is the answer. In a truly free market economy, like in the US, UK, and, nah no European countries, the market will switch to the new energy form in a heartbeat. Why? Because the market don't wanna lose any money!

When does the oil price get too high? I wish I knew. Some indications show that that point will be reached in a few decades, other indications show that it will take a few hundred years. Who’s right? I guess time will tell.

But I skeptical to the notion that the oil reserves are replenished.

 

[drkitten]

Nah, I don't think that changing to any other energy form will change the economy in any major way. "Why, Anders, are you so naive you believe such stupid things?". Well, market economy is the answer. In a truly free market economy, like in the US, UK, and, nah no European countries, the market will switch to the new energy form in a heartbeat. Why? Because the market don't wanna lose any money!

I don't think you understand why the economy will change. It's not the energy transition itself that will change the economy, but the rising price of energy that will force the economy to change. Right now, it's economically viable to live in a suburban area without mass transit -- if energy costs triple, that may no longer be true.

It's similarly economically viable to sell fresh fish (even sushi-grade fish) in non-coastal areas, because it can be air-freighted in from the oceans. This may no longer be the case if the costs of air-freight triples.

Et cetera.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Re: Re: What if there is no Global Warming?

Running out of fossil fuels.

I would make the same demands of you that I would to Andrew Wakefield on the issue of MMR causing autism. You made the claim, where is the credible evidence?

I'll add a little appeal to authority rather than merely asserting the obvious.

http://www.energyinst.org.uk/education/natural/2.htm

" It is a finite resource and will, one day, be used up."

No timescale given, by stated to be finite, which was all I was trying to do.

I still haven't received any answers to my original questions. I think what I have received is a parade of hobby horses demonstrating pre-existing positions that are responses to questions I did not ask rather than any attempts to answer the questions that were asked. Might I ask that those are attempted?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Good old Google.

Why the epithets? "refusenik", "deniers" ?

It seems a little strange to try and link these two issues together. Why do you try and do that?

Anthropogenic global warming:

[Doesn't exist]

Running out of fossil fuels.

[Ain't gonna happen]

Pausing only briefly to note that Drooper's answers show exactly the correlation that my OP posited, hence vindicating the linkage of the two issues, I found the following link;

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#c

which states that although oil resources are in strict terms finite, in practical terms they are not.

Would those posters who think that humans are not responsible for an element of global warming also find themselves in agreement with that ncpa policy backgrounder? If so, that would suggest that in answer to my OP's questions it is likely that those who see no reason to conserve fossil fuels because of Global Warming also see no need to do so for the management of the resource either. I wonder if they can explain that spooky coincidence of opinions, while at the same time still share Drooper's surprise that I would suggest they are linked. Intriguingly, Drooper is sort of right, each is not a logical prerequisite for the other, but I do observe that they tend to go hand in hand in politics. I am interested in why they should co-exist like this.

This leads to a corollary to be answered by those same people. If fossil fuels do not cause global warming and there is no practical end to their reserves should we simply be aiming to maximise extraction in order to achieve the most rapid possible expansion of the world economy with untold benefits? Is there no limit to the growth we can achieve while still bound to the Earth's surface?

 

[Drooper]

Re: Re: Re: What if there is no Global Warming?

Oh, for pity's sake, get a sense of humour and get over yourself.

Why did I link the topics? Read the post. The solution proposed to both problems is to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels and find replacements. They have their solutions in common. For some reason only Global Warming is being discussed, whereas 20 or 30 years ago it had not been heard of but the finiteness of fossil fuel reserves drove a lot of the environmental agenda.

Now, if you'd like to apologise and answer more reasonably I'd be grateful.

Apologise for what exactly?

You made an absurd claim, in suggesting that we are running out of fossil fuels. Provide something that back up that claim.

You have no trouble requesting the same from people like anti vaxers or homeopaths on issues where you have considerable knowledge and experience, such as vetinary medicine.

 

[Drooper]

Re: Re: Re: What if there is no Global Warming?

I'll add a little appeal to authority rather than merely asserting the obvious.

http://www.energyinst.org.uk/education/natural/2.htm

" It is a finite resource and will, one day, be used up."

No timescale given, by stated to be finite, which was all I was trying to do.

I still haven't received any answers to my original questions. I think what I have received is a parade of hobby horses demonstrating pre-existing positions that are responses to questions I did not ask rather than any attempts to answer the questions that were asked. Might I ask that those are attempted?

Being finite does mean it will run out.

Iron ore, aluminium, silica, copper etc, etc, etc. There are loads of finite resources that we are using in ever increasing amounts. We are not going to run out of those either.

What you presented was a hobby horse of epithets. Go read your post again. You display some excellent traits of a critical thinker on many issues on this forum, but here you are sounding like Interesting Ian.

"So, are the [Global Warming/Paranormal] refuseniks also denying that [we'll run out of fossil fuels/there is no life after death], "

 

[The Don]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What if there is no Global Warming?

You made an absurd claim, in suggesting that we are running out of fossil fuels. Provide something that back up that claim.

Would you agree that the rate at which we are consuming fossil fuels is greater than the rate at which they are being created ?

If you do then we must, by definition, be running out.