This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Oil Limits and Climate Change – How They Fit Together

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

We hear a lot about climate change, especially now that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently published another report. At the same time, oil is reaching limits, and this has an effect as well. How do the two issues fit together?

In simplest terms, what the situation means to me is that the “low scenario,” which the IPCC calls “RCP2.6,” is closest to what we can expect in terms of man-made carbon emissions. Thus, the most reasonable scenario, based on their modeling, would seem to be the purple bar that continues to rise for the next twenty years or so and then is close to horizontal.

Figure 1. Summary Climate Change Exhibit from new  IPCC Report.

Figure 1. Summary global average surface temperature change exhibit from new IPCC Report.

I come to this conclusion by looking at the tables of anthropogenic carbon emission shown in Annex II of the report. According to IPCC data, the four modeled scenarios have emissions indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Total anthropogenic carbon emissions modeled for in the scenarios selected by the IPCC, based on data from Table All 2.a in Annex II.

Figure 2. Total anthropogenic carbon emissions modeled for in the scenarios selected by the IPCC, based on data from Table All 2.a in Annex II.


The Likely Effect of Oil Limits

The likely effect of oil limits–one way or the other–is to bring down the economy, and because of this bring an end to pretty much all carbon emissions (not just oil) very quickly. There are several ways this could happen:

  • High oil prices – we saw what these could do in 2008.  They nearly sank the financial system. If they return, central banks have already done most of what they can to “fix” the situation. They are likely to be short of ammunition the next time around.
  • Low oil prices – this is the current problem. Oil companies are cutting back on new expenditures because they cannot make money on a cash flow basis on shale plays and on other new oil drilling. Oil companies can’t just keep adding debt, so they are doing less investment. I talked about this in Beginning of the End? Oil Companies Cut Back on Spending. Less oil means either a rebound in prices or not enough oil produced to go around. Either way, we are likely to see massive recession and falling world GDP.
  • Huge credit problems, such as happened in 2008, only worse. Oil drilling would stop within a few years, because oil prices would drop too low, and stay too low, without lots of credit to prop up prices of commodities of all types.
  • Rapidly rising interest rates, as QE reaches its limits. (QE for the United States was put in place at the time of the 2008 crisis, and has been continued since then.) Rising interest rates lead to higher needed tax rates and high monthly payments for homes and cars. The current QE-induced bubble in stock, land, and home prices is also likely to break, sending prices down again.
  • End of globalization, as countries form new alliances, such as Russia-China-Iran. The US is making false claims that we can get along without some parts of the world, because we have so much natural gas and oil. This is nonsense. Once groups of countries start pulling in opposite directions, the countries that have been using a disproportionate share of oil (particularly Europe, the United States, and Japan) will find themselves in deep trouble.
  • Electric grid failures, because subsidies for renewables leave companies that sell fossil-fuel powered electricity with too little profit. The current payment system for renewables needs to be fixed to be fair to companies that generate electricity using fossil fuels. We cannot operate our economy on renewables alone, in part, because the quantity is far too small. Creation of new renewables and maintenance of such renewables is also fossil fuel dependent.

If any of these scenarios takes place and snowballs to a collapse of today’s economy, I expect that a rapid decline in fossil fuel consumption of all kinds will take place. This decline is likely to be more rapid than modeled in the RCP2.6 Scenario. The RCP2.6 Scenario assumes that anthropogenic carbon emissions will still be at 84% of 2010 levels in 2030. In comparison, my expectation (Figure 3, below) is that fossil fuel use (and thus anthropogenic carbon emissions) will be at a little less than 40% of 2010 levels in 2030.

Figure 3. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

Figure 3. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

After 2070, the RCP2.6 Scenario indicates negative carbon emissions, presumably from geo-engineering. In my view of the future, such an approach seems unlikely if oil limits are a major problem, because without fossil fuels, we will not have the ability to use engineering approaches. It is also doubtful that there would be as much need for these engineered carbon-take-downs at the end of the period. Population would likely be much lower by then, so current anthropogenic carbon emissions would be less of a problem.

The Climate Change Scenario Not Modeled

We really don’t know what future climate change will look like because no one has tried to model what a collapse situation would look like. Presumably there will be a lot of tree-cutting and burning of biomass for fuel. This will change land use besides adding emissions from the burned biomass to the atmosphere. At the same time, emissions associated with fossil fuels will likely drop very rapidly.

Clearly the climate has been changing and will continue to change. At least part of our problem is that we have assumed that it is possible to have an unchanging world and have made huge investments assuming that climate would go along with our plans. Unfortunately, the way nature “works” is by repeatedly replacing one system with another system. The new systems that survive tend to be better adapted to recent changes in conditions. If we think of humans, other animals, and plants as “systems,” this is true of them as well. No living being can expect to survive forever.

Unfortunately economies are not permanent either. Just as the Roman Empire failed, our economy cannot last forever. In physics, economies seem to be examples of dissipative structures, just as plants and animals and hurricanes are. Dissipative structures are formed in the presence of flows of energy and matter in open thermodynamic systems–that is, systems that are constantly receiving a new flow of energy, as we on earth do from the sun. Unfortunately, dissipative structures don’t last forever.

Dissipative structures temporarily dissipate energy that is available. At the same time, they affect their surroundings. In the case of an economy, the use of energy permits the extraction of the most accessible, easy-to-extract resources, such as fossil fuels, metals, and fresh water. At the same time, population tends to grow. The combination of growing extraction and rising population leads to economic stresses.

At some point the economy becomes overly stressed because of limits of various types. Some of these limits are pollution-related, such as climate change. Other limits present themselves as higher costs, such as the need for deeper wells or desalination to provide water for a growing population, and the need for greater food productivity per acre because of more mouths to feed. The extraction of oil and other fossil fuels also provides a cost limit, as resource extraction becomes more complex, requiring a larger share of the output of the economy. When limits hit, governments are especially likely to suffer from inadequate funding and excessive debt, because tax revenue suffers if wages and profits drop.

People who haven’t thought much about the situation often believe that we can simply get along without our current economy. If we think about the situation, we would lose a great deal if we lost the connections that our current economy, and the financial system underlying it, offers. We as humans cannot “do it alone”–pull out metals and refine them with our bare hands, dig deeper wells, or keep up fossil fuel extraction. Re-establishing needed connections in a totally new economy would be a massive undertaking. Such connections are normally built up over decades or longer, as new businesses are formed, governments make laws, and consumers adapt to changing situations. Without oil, we cannot easily go back to horse and buggy!

Unfortunately, much of the writing related to dissipative structures and the economy is in French. François Roddier wrote a book called Thermodynamique de l’évolution on topics related to this subject. Matthieu Auzanneau writes about the issue on his blog. Roddier has a presentation available in French. One paper on a related topic in English is Energy Rate Density as a Complexity Metric and Evolutionary Driver by E. Chaisson. Causal Entropic Forces by Wissner-Gross and Freer provides evidence regarding how  societies self-organize in ways that maximize entropy.

The IPCC’s Message Isn’t Really Right 

We are bumping up against limits in many ways not modeled in the IPCC report. The RCP2.6 Scenario comes closest of the scenarios shown in providing an indication of our future situation. Clearly the climate is changing and will continue to change in ways that our planners never considered when they built cities and took out long-term loans. This is a problem not easily solved.

One of the big issues is that energy supplies seem to be leaving us, indirectly through economic changes that we have little control over. The IPCC report is written from the opposite viewpoint:  we humans are in charge and need to decide to leave energy supplies. The view is that the economy, despite our energy problems, will return to robust growth. With this robust growth, our big problem will be climate change because of the huge amount of carbon emissions coming from fossil fuel burning.

Unfortunately, the real situation is that the laws of physics, rather than humans, are in charge. Basically, as economies grow, it takes increasing complexity to fix problems, as Joseph Tainter explained in his book, The Collapse of Complex Societies. Dissipative structures provide this ever-increasing complexity through higher “energy rate density” (explained in the Chaisson article linked above).

Now we are reaching limits in many ways, but we can’t–or dare not–model how all of these limits are hitting. We can, in theory, add more complexity to fix our problems–electric cars, renewable energy, higher city density, better education of women. These things would require more energy rate density. Ultimately, they seem to depend on the availability of more inexpensive energy–something that is increasingly unavailable.

The real issue is the danger that our economy will collapse in the near term. From the earth’s point of view, this is not a problem–it will create new dissipative structures in the future, and the best-adapted of these will survive. Climate will adapt to changing conditions, and different species will be favored as the climate changes. But from the point of view of those of us living on the planet earth, there is a distinct advantage to keeping business as usual going for as long as possible.  A collapsed economy cannot support 7.2 billion people.

We need to understand what are really up against, if we are to think rationally about the future. It would be helpful if more people tried to understand the physics of the situation, even if it is a difficult subject. While we can’t really expect to “fix” the situation, we can perhaps better understand what “solutions” are likely to make the situation worse. Such knowledge will also provide a better context for understanding how climate change fits in with other limits we are reaching. Climate change is certainly not the whole problem, but it may still play a significant role.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 04/12/2014 - 19:51 | 4652469 So Close
So Close's picture

They were probably having similiar discussions when they were running out of whale oil.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:18 | 4652566 GooseShtepping Moron
GooseShtepping Moron's picture

"They" never ran out of whale oil. Commercial whaling actually continued to grow right into the early 1960s. Whaling was made vastly more efficient and profitable by the technological advances of the cheap energy age; so much so that international agreements had to be hammered out to limit the harvesting so that we wouldn' out of whales.

This is not the case with petroleum. There is no great, untapped energy source waiting in the wings capable of either replacing petroleum or making petroleum extraction more efficient, thus upping the EROI. Future oil extraction will have to be subsidized, which means it will actually weaken the larger economy.

Global warming was a politically contrived, phony crisis; and due to its reputation as such, many there are who would scoff at Peak Oil as if it were something of the same genre. Unfortunately, Peak Oil is very, very real.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:49 | 4652681 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

We haven't reached Peak Dudgeon yet, evidently. We've been on high dudgeon since Rachel Carlson, hell, maybe Malthus, and we never seem to run out, alas.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:12 | 4652745 NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

What a giant steaming pile of horseshit this article is.  Right after the 2016 elections all energy production is going to drop off dramatically?  I would bet any amount of currency (or gold) this doesn't happen.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:43 | 4652844 Pinto Currency
Pinto Currency's picture


This planet is bathed in energy.

Energy production of all sorts will only collapse if the central bankers collapse society.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 22:23 | 4652939 kindape
kindape's picture

i think that was her point

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 22:52 | 4653021 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Where's crack sister in all of this?

I feel like a good laugh

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:33 | 4653832 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

Global warming AND peak oil in the same article.   Does Zerohedge get paid to run this nonsense?

I'm absolutely serious.   Obama is pressuring TV show to run pro Obamacare story lines.   Even as much as 20 years ago the DEA paid the TV series ER $250,000 per episode to include antidrug story lines.    Mass media is just a mouthpiece for the powers that be now.   Even Zerohedge.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:53 | 4654048 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

The article makes an excellent point; when economic activity collapses, so will carbon emissions. Therefore, it is dumb to spend billions on carbon this-and-that as the system will right itself.

If I am not mistaken, this is EXACTLY what happened to the Soviet Union when it collapsed (i.e. internal industry collapsed as did its emissions). This was a huge sticking point in negotiations between countries regarding adoption of global protocols because Russia wanted to keep the credits earned during those times for being under quota.

I don't buy the climate change crap. I have always viewed it one of two ways:

  1. A cheap source of CO2 for CO2 injection wells which will allow additional advanced recovery of any old oil reservoir. CO2, when injected in quantity, makes an emulsion which can be used to sweep a reservoir. Water doesn't mix, so it cuts and flows through the reservoir. CO2 mixes and pushes in a wave through the reservoir, almost like a sweep. It isn't economical (right now) due to CO2 prices. Find a huge source of cheap CO2 and a lot of oil production becomes possible from old fields.
  2. An ability to "tax" anything that emits CO2, such as you and me, so that if we don't pay they snuff us out (for the planet and all).

Or, maybe it is just a boondoggle. Or all of it.




Mon, 04/14/2014 - 06:52 | 4656163 Element
Element's picture

What makes you think CO2 emissions even matter to warming? The data shows no close or unambiguous correlation.

See the medieval warming link I posted down the page.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 07:40 | 4656222 venturen
venturen's picture

I will believe them when ONE of their "predictions" proves correct So far they are 0 for 100. No hurricane increase, colder winters, etc.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 08:39 | 4656327 Flakmeister
Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:24 | 4657229 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

1896: Svante Arrhenius correctly predicts that increases in fossil fuel emissions would cause the earth to warm.

1938: Guy Callendar is the first to link observed rises in CO2 concentrations with observed rises in surface temperatures.

1959: Burt Bolin and Erik Eriksson correctly predict the exponential increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere

1961-2: Carl Sagan correctly predicts very thick greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of Venus, as the only way to explain the very high observed temperatures. His calculations showed that greenhouse gasses must absorb around 99.5% of the outgoing surface radiation. The composition of Venus’s atmosphere was confirmed by NASA’s Venus probes in 1967-70.


but dont conflate correlation with causation or anything.


and keep posting up those biased links, we all like a good laugh.  especially Sagan and Venus.  fkn numbskull, what's the atmospheric pressure?  nah, that cant have any effect.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 13:35 | 4657474 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Parading your ignorance again?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 13:51 | 4657513 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

run run run, post up biased analysis and call them 100% factual truth...really, go back to being a professor's aide, dude.  you fit right in the echo chamber there.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 01:14 | 4658927 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Paging Batman! Your climate-saving super-hero skills are needed!

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 16:02 | 4654695 Errol
Errol's picture

Ob1knob, actually, MSM gets paid to run climate-change denier nonsense.  Just look who funds deniers (oil and coal oligarchs), and the techniques used (same as the tobacco industry used: hire stooge "scientists" to pretend that there was a real controversy amongst scientists as to the bad effects of smoking).  Just like those who were addicted to cigarettes parotted the official denier party line despite the evidence before their own eyes, people addicted to the ease and confort provided by burning fossil fuels parrot the official 'denier' party line despite the evidence before their own eyes.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 16:45 | 4654833 0b1knob
0b1knob's picture

You forgot the official party line when you didn't accuse me PERSONALLY of being a paid shill.

Errol = another Zero Hedge account created years ago that just recently (the last 5 weeks) started posting.   Another sock puppet account?  Things that make you go hmmm...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 06:49 | 4656161 Element
Element's picture



Let's see, if I post this real-world and actual most recent empirical measure of global temp records and its linear trend line, will you just flat-out deny it completely and go on talking ridiculous pompous crap about facing the facts and the general odium of 'deniers'?


Yup, damn right you will, as you're sniveling swanning mooching utter fucking hypocritical denier-burger with legs and a gob.  :-D


You and the kettle will get on just fine together.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 20:39 | 4655351 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 Even as much as 20 years ago the DEA paid the TV series ER $250,000 per episode to include antidrug story lines.  

link, please.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:03 | 4655408 0b1knob
Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:00 | 4656592 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Wow. Thanks!

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 16:22 | 4654669 Errol
Errol's picture

Pinto, if by "bathed in energy" you mean sunlight, that's true.  The problem for industrial society is that sunlight is a very diffuse resource.  Current industrial society was designed around the availability of a MUCH higher energy density - sunlight that was gathered for literally 100's of millions of years and then concentrated by geologic forces.  Once that concentrated energy is no longer available (due to requiring more energy to extract than it yields), industrial civilization is toast.

You missed Gail's points:

1) disruption of commerce may stop extraction of some of the oil and coal that is still thermodynamically profitable to extract, and

2) central banks  expended their strongest medicine after the 2008 collapse; they will be less sucessful in papering over the next one.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 22:26 | 4652942 spinone
spinone's picture

Oil extraction is already subsidized by externalities.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:07 | 4653304 Seer
Seer's picture

I wouldn't say that global warming (which should really be "climate change" because people are too dense to understand the dynamics of how the glacial periods set in) is necessary contrived.  Its as real as "Peak Oil," though it's FAR more difficult to measure (therein which lies the issue).

"Future oil extraction will have to be subsidized, which means it will actually weaken the larger economy."

It's pretty much been subsidized from the beginning (and is most definately subsidized NOW- look at the military budget to understand some of this).

As we watch the miles-driven-per-capita in the US drop it points out that we've hit peak consumption, and with that we start the nasty turn of "economies of scale in reverse," wherein the drop in volume impacts production efficiencies, which then puts upward pressure on price, which further kills consumption, and round and round we circle the drain...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:34 | 4653482 viator
viator's picture

Ever hear of methane hydrates, among other sources of energy?

"The sedimentary methane hydrate reservoir probably contains 2–10 times the currently known reserves of conventional natural gas, as of 2013"

There have only been eleven oil fields that produce a million or more barrels of per day. Three of those eleven now exist in the US.


Sun, 04/13/2014 - 08:45 | 4653589 Landrew
Landrew's picture

Wow, if you do the math, you will understand it TAKES MORE energy to bring that methane to market then the energy we recover. Unless you have some sort of magic energy, why not just use the magic and bypass the methane?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 13:37 | 4654306 giggler321
giggler321's picture

>>This is not the case with petroleum. There is no great, untapped energy source waiting in the wings.

Depends who's wings - ALIENS and not the kind that cross the border between mexico and texas.  I only mention this since it ranks up there with Peak Oil and Global warming, to some.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:31 | 4653199 snodgrass
snodgrass's picture

This is a bullshit article from that collection of third world losers called the UN. It was warmer during the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages than it is today and guess what - they weren't burning fossil fuels back then. The global warming/manmade cllimate change scam is the banker's way of bringing back feudalism. It's a scam, a con. 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 23:16 | 4653229 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

To install a world government, the control freaks must overcome the very strong ingroup-outgroup survival trait ingrained in the minds of most everyone.

To do so, they are attempting to circumvent innate ethnic groupings with an enemy to everyone that exists external to the social world. A fictitious example would be an invasion from outer space.

Their attempt is based on global warming.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:14 | 4653312 Seer
Seer's picture

I tended to get out of this that the climate change ("global warming") issues would be mitigated due to declines in fossil fuels.

"The global warming/manmade cllimate change scam is the banker's way of bringing back feudalism. It's a scam, a con. "

Whatever... But know this: w/o abundant cheap energy there is ONLY going back... if you don't like feudalism then just hang in there, as we will push back past that and eventually end up with tribalism.

When you've hung all the bankers and politicians (not that that would upset me) you're STILL looking at populations that have over-borrowed from the future AND are facing resource shortages (with which to keep the game going).  Who are you going to blame then? (when, clearly, it's our premise of perpetual growth on a finite planet that's the fundamental source of our problems)

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:56 | 4653496 viator
viator's picture

"Labour peer Viscount Simon, 73, raised concerns about the "smelly emissions" resulting from the UK's unusually high consumption of baked beans."

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 19:56 | 4652472 HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

'Climate change' ?  IPCC ?

Hahalhahahahaah !   :)    That's a good one, what a freakin'  joke !

This stuff reminds me of the propaganda that Baghdad Bob used to do.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:29 | 4653196 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Actually it's the deniers and clowns that are Baghdad's Bob's soulmates....

It's the living in complete denial of reality that "brings it all together"....

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 05:55 | 4653465 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



You should pair up with the Westboro Baptist church.


When cults collide.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:24 | 4654136 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And you should take a University level science course at Junior level...

It is pretty clear that you have never...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:35 | 4654006 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Having a Ph.D. in physics is plenty enough to guide me in knowing who is bullshiting and who isn't...

Take your dubious propaganda elsewhere...

BTW, if you want to see what real academic fraud looks like, I suggest you read this:

If you are following the Mann trial then you will know what the Wegman report was all about....

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:35 | 4654162 snodgrass
snodgrass's picture

Are you sure you aren't really the queen of England?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:51 | 4654183 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Have you considered applying for the job of village idiot?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:59 | 4654206 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Probably not until you retire from it.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 13:14 | 4654243 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Re: VI, You went emeritus a long time ago...

And at such a early age no less...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:51 | 4655780 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

I would never hold any public office.

Besides, you are far better at it. If they ever get to a world government, you would undoubtedly be the first pick for world idiot.

Then you could be both the Douglas Feith Dumbest Fucking Guy on the Planet award winner and the world idiot at the same time.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:28 | 4658959 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

You saying that to Flak is like watching a retard who was dropped on the head many times as a baby call Einstein or Hawking an idiot. Flak's not Hawking but he's probably 100x smarter than you are.

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 02:26 | 4672282 Seek_Truth
Seek_Truth's picture


Sun, 04/13/2014 - 08:39 | 4653578 Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

And the reality is that there has been no global warming in the last 18 years - even the IPCC admitted this.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:38 | 4654012 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Could you show me the link backing your claim...


So  you are clearly admitting that it was warming before you say it stopped.

Why was it warming before?

So when exactly did it stop?

And what changed to make it stop?


Finally, could you explain the following fitted trends GISTEMP 

1970 to 1997:  0.146 +/- 0.067 C/decade (2 sigma)

1970 to 2014:  0.163 +/- 0.031  C/decade (2 sigma)

If the warming "stopped" why has the rate of warming increased if I add the last 17 years in?

It is mathematically impossible for what you claim to be true...

So shit for brains, what are you going to say now?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 20:59 | 4655396 BigJim
BigJim's picture

OOOh, gosh girlfriend, the trend (according to GISTEMP on that site) was 0.067 +/- 0.13  C per decade (2 sigma) between 1998 and 2014.

Wow! That sure is some statistically significant shit, wouldn't you say, Ms PhD wizard? Extrapolate that a century and you get... well.. you get almost* 1 degree C warmer than we are now.

I wonder why you back dateed it to 1970... hmmm... could it be because that gives a much more credible +/- 0.031  C/decade?

Let's do a little more digging.. according to NOAA, the 'rise' was 0.041 +/- 0.121  C/decade (2 sigma)

according to HADCRUT4, the 'rise' was 0.042 +/- 0.123  C/decade (2 sigma)

but wait! There's more! According to RSS (satellite) the 'warming' was  MINUS 0.05 C/decade +/- 0.217 (2 sigma) .

You're a complete joke. Where'd you get you PhD? Mail order?

*0.67 of a degree in fact

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:21 | 4655716 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And this is an example of the math that deniers do to fool themselves...

You can draw no conclusions about such a short trend. Experts know you need 25-30 years to define a statistically significant trend given the year to year variance in the temperature data...

Not only that, you cherry picked the record El Nino as your start point....

And why was the 2000-2010 data the warmest on record, eh?

Finally what you really fail to grasp is that since the fitted trend increased by adding more data, it implies enough newer data was above the existing trend, i.e. still warming...

What an ignorant clown you are or pretend to be....

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 02:06 | 4655967 mumbo_jumbo
mumbo_jumbo's picture

"Experts know you need 25-30 years to define a"


mere micro second of earths 4 billion year old history, the global warming (renamed climate change so it actually fits with observations) zealots are really funny as they try and defend their religion.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 08:54 | 4656387 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The climate when trilobites dominated the Earth is of little consequence to the present...We have 800,000 years of high quality C02 and temperature data that is well understood and which predates the emergence of H. Sapiens that says we are in trouble...  

When you have science and facts on your side, it ain't religion... You are the one that should be looking in the mirror buddy...

BTW, Frank Luntz while in the service of the GOP pushed the CC vs. GW meme... It was not so scary...


Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:27 | 4657239 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

fkn high quality ROFL, more like it

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 22:25 | 4659281 Element
Element's picture

I love how you like to pretend that the science and data were developed and discovered for your pet theory.

No dumb dumb, science and data does not have a 'side', any more than some god is on a war makers side, that is just the propaganda they use to fool themselves into walking in front of cannons.  You aren't driving your imaginary panzer now.

Data is indifferent to theories and to snake-oil peddlers, like you.

The science was here and being developed a century before AGW ever reared its stupid anti-science and anti-data and anti-human political agendas.

And the data does not support AGW in any defensible way. AGW was in fact falsified by the data decades ago, and continues to be, almost daily, with new data releases and updates.

You are all back to the level of extreme hand-waving idiocy.

And the turgid dishonest stumble-bum IPCC clown-fest is back to churning out its propaganda dirge scare-campaigns, as quickly as it can do so, such is the desperation to try and regain political traction. But its chance is blown, they're done, it will hand-wave and talk utterly stupid bollocks for some years more but your dippy political agendas are kaput.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:20 | 4656652 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 And this is an example of the math that deniers do to fool themselves...

You can draw no conclusions about such a short trend. Experts know you need 25-30 years to define a statistically significant trend given the year to year variance in the temperature data...

I see. So 17 years is too short... but the 50 years from 1950 is enough to extrapolate warming trends into the next few centuries?

Not only that, you cherry picked the record El Nino as your start point....

No, I picked the date from which the planet stopped warming. Because that's what we're talking about, isn't it: the inability of climate scientists' models to predict temperatures.

And why was the 2000-2010 data the warmest on record, eh?

See above. I might add that 'on record' extends how far, exactly?

Finally what you really fail to grasp is that since the fitted trend increased by adding more data, it implies enough newer data was above the existing trend, i.e. still warming...

I'm sure if we extended the data back to the end of the little ice age, the fitted trend would be increased even more! But that doesn't take away from the fact that the climatista's models completely failed to predict temperatures for the last 17 years, does it? Despite all the claims that the 'science was settled'.

You really are bad at this thinking stuff, aren't you? Maybe I should apply for a PhD in Physics. They do seem to be giving them away these days.... or did you get yours through an affirmative action program, girlfriend?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 02:56 | 4656002 Element
Element's picture



You're a complete joke. Where'd you get you PhD? Mail order?

You are on to part of it there Jim, but it's more that he's a completely mendacious ratbag. After many of these interactions I know that this is not about debate for him, it's about conceiving the best lies, avoidances and obfuscations, and trying to make them stick without them being noticed. 

You noticed is all. Everything he posts is geared for deception, and once you know that, his comments are transparent.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 08:55 | 4656391 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah,just like your GISP2 data plot... 

Lies and deception are your calling card...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:22 | 4656654 Element
Element's picture

Did BigJim make you mangina sore?

You got nailed, and that GISP2 plot, I've posted a couple, formal presentations of the data from papers or review graphs not made by me. Not my problem if you can't cope with datasets that prove your pet theory wrong.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:24 | 4656660 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 You are on to part of it there Jim, but it's more that he's a completely mendacious ratbag.

Yes, she is astonishingly mendacious, and will deploy any sophistry she can in her attempts to win an argument.

She'd be a great asset to the State Department, they can always use soulless sociopaths to come up with reasons we need to kill more brown people.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 02:02 | 4655963 mumbo_jumbo
mumbo_jumbo's picture

Why was it warming before?

So when exactly did it stop?

And what changed to make it stop?


the sun, the sun and the sun.

you're welcome.

and WOW, he's a shit for brains? many get mad when their religion turns out to be a hoax so you'll get a pass, for little while anyway.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 08:58 | 4656402 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well you should be able to point to some data and make that claim...

Why can't you?

It's because the effect from C02 is now larger than the variation in solar output... 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:29 | 4657243 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

or as Hansen told me,

"Man's effect on the climate has now well overshadowed the sun's effects on the climate."


at which point I told him he was an utterly biased dont want the sun to protest that statement, trust and believe...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 22:41 | 4659373 Element
Element's picture

What a brainless goof Hansen is ... but of course, he knows that's an absurd lie, so it's never about the data or science process, its about the best lie-teller 'wins' ... the rights to rip-off the public purse ... so honesty does not come into it at all.

And bought to you by excessive public-funding of big 'science'.

The only chance is for big science is to clean up its act, very quickly, before its too late, and the general public begins to demand that funding and budgets be severely curtailed, or even completely eliminated, as the fraudsters in public-funded science institutions can not be allowed to proliferate further, and damage inputs to policy and planning.

That is not what they were budgeted public money for.

That's coming, and given the political risk these theory and model peddlers represent, it can not come soon enough.

Same goes of the UN, it is a disgusting farce and represents global political perversion risk, and the public know it.

And clearly none of them is self-correcting, they can only be purged of the dead wood, preferably shut down completely.

The countries that do it first and do it best will yield the most scientific benefit from a renewal.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 19:55 | 4652477 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"According to IPCC data..."

Which everyone should accept at face value, of

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:05 | 4652524 Papasmurf
Papasmurf's picture

"IPCC data" is a contradiction of terms.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:02 | 4652726 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Correction: IPCC fortune telling.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:31 | 4652606 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Why doesn't the IPPC do something useful and model the different types of economic growth.

One based on a gold coin standard, with 100% reserve banking.

The other based on

1. fiat currency
2. fractional reserve banking
3. QE,
4.trillion dollar deficits
5.hundreds of billions of handouts to the MIC.
6. endless wars of choice.
7. Massive social handouts
8. Thousand page tax laws.
9. Market manipulation

When the results come in concerning

Resource utilization and depletion .
Population growth/ sustainability.

Then we can talk.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:23 | 4653218 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The IPCC doesn't do any original research...

Or were you aware of that?

It is a very conservative concensus based on existing published material....

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:55 | 4653269 Element
Element's picture

You mean these guys?

Even those who knew the science accepted it without question as Klaus Eckert Puls courageously confessed.


“... Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. ...”




The global warming scare evolved at Stanford University as a central issue framed by the Club of Rome (COR), whose ideas became the foundation of UN Agenda 21 and the UN Framework Committee on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In 1991


"... The First Global Revolution was published and identified “the threat of global warming”.The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself. ...”


Yeah right, 'conservative' ... rectitude too ... and happy yellow puppies in the dewy morning sunshine playing in daffodils.

The IPCC don't do any research because they are simply a rank hard-core UN propaganda agency designed to produce bullshit attacks on humanity, and to vilifying human beings in every possible way, and are doing pretty much nothing else whatsoever, ... oh, except parasitising humanity in every possible way as well.


And clowns like flak carry their water.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:05 | 4653301 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The credibility of Anthony Watts is non existent, just like your blowhard buddy Plimer...

What you don't know about the IPCC fills many volumes and it shows....

It ain't their fault that you can't handle the message...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:17 | 4653305 Element
Element's picture

Which pre-supposes anyone should ever want to.


But if you want to talk of 'credibility', gee, let's see from just this weeks posts on WUWT:


For AGW:
The Great Credibility Gap yawns ever wider


For Anthony Watts blog site itself:
Study: WUWT near the center of the climate blogosphere

Looks like the credibility is far sounder than the IPCCs or AGW's there sport.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:18 | 4653474 agent default
agent default's picture

I suppose the frauds, quacks and con artists of the University of East Anglia CRU are highly credible.  Show me any other field of scientific research were you can try anything close to what they did and not only get ridiculed and fired on the spot, but also have your PhD revoked.  Name one.  The IPCC and that former train driver in charge(no really look it up) however, not only accepted the fake data of the CRU, but actualy defended them. 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:53 | 4653491 Element
Element's picture

That's OK, I've heard flak defend them many times too, so it all makes sense. His agenda is not just the constant lying and misrepresentation about climate data either, it's also to bad-mouth energy flow, its economics, its tech and its potential, its environmental impacts, and to assert reserves are on the verge of failure, and to of course pump multiply failed worker's-wages-subsidized white-elephant technologies as his solution (you know the ones). It's one of the intellectual roaches infesting some unfortunate Uni department, sucking on the tit of said worker's-wages there, as well.

Typical AGW scab on the posterior of humanity, doing all he can to fifth-column everyone and lacerate the hand that feeds him.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 07:18 | 4653505 agent default
agent default's picture

Have you seen Flak's bio here?

Basically couldn't hack it in particle physics, ended up in Wall Street, eventually ended up in the field of climate change.  Climate change is sort of a last refuge for him.  Speaks volumes about the subject and the sort of people it attracts.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 08:01 | 4653530 Element
Element's picture

No, I had never even bothered to look, but as I remember he did previously say he worked in basic research in physics. Note the GCM discussion in the WUWT page linked below. Flak once tried to tell me that the warmist/alarmists were as thorough in their modelling as the people mapping and analyzing the CBR microwave after-glow to develop quantitative cosmological models.

yeah .... riiiight flak ... suuure ... pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

That's the standard level of dishonesty you're always dealing with, with flak.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:48 | 4654035 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Well, they are buddy....

Deal with it...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 22:56 | 4655649 Element
Element's picture

As you can see above, and below, flak, I am 'dealing' with it, we can all see the vacuousness of the GCMs and their projections and the thoroughly flimsy and shallow nature of the physical modelling. 

Going to 'deal' with it a lot more too.  :-D

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:27 | 4655734 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

One of the great flaws of mankind is that dart-throwing monkeys like Flakmeister think that they know how to run the world.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 01:00 | 4655904 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nope... not in the least, the science has nothing to do what you chose to do about its implications...

It is truly sad that there are so many ignornant people such as yourself...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:47 | 4654033 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I left the field after budget cuts in the Bush era gutted the program of the National Lab where I was a staff research scientist...

Three years was more than enough of Wall Street for me, I don;t care for working with sociopaths on a daily basis. So I now do private consulting....

So what are you qualifications that lend weight to your opinion on Climate Science or do you just make shit up as you go along?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 16:15 | 4654739 Errol
Errol's picture

Flakmeister, I too am amazed at the large number of climate scientists posting on ZH.  You can tell they are first rate scientists too: instead of using qualifiers like "the evidence strongly suggests" or " a robust sample indicated", they speak in certainties and absolutes.

/S ('cause they're too dumb to tell it's sarcasm if I don't add that)

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 22:48 | 4655632 Element
Element's picture

Tell it to the IPCC, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, (and many, many others) who have all been caught-out multiple times saying and discussing and describing their intent to use science as propaganda to concoct falsehoods, change data, fabricate reports and construct what can only be called rank lie-campaigns, to deliberately mislead and misinform the general public in order to obtain political power, funding, tax 'reform', and global policy changes to serve their lies and agendas, which as it turns out, is to inflict withering harm (literally withering) on all of human civilization.

Or does scientific rectitude, ethical concerns and personal morality not extend that far for you, as well?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:19 | 4655692 Element
Element's picture

Um, since when does particle physics 'qualify' you scientifically in a climate science commentary role of superior credence?

Palaeoclimatology is a formal specialization in sedimentology which is a major sub-discipline of Geology .

Or didn't you even know that much about the qualifications in the field?

At the present time I notice some classic former Geology Departments are trying to re-brand themselves under the more general 'Earth Sciences' banner, in order to attract more public and industry funding sources.

As a geologist I formally studied paleoclimate as a routine part of degrees and now use paleoclimate knowledge routinely within my paid profession, and within my former businesses. If it were not for my profession's in-depth knowledge of paleoclimate and palaeoenvironmental change with time, the knowledge of those areas would be very thin-on-the-ground today indeed.

So yeah, I'm far more qualified than you to speak in this area, I actually have formal qualifications in the discipline.


You apparently have none.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:23 | 4655718 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You may know rocks, but you sure fucked up the thermodynamics along the way and the rudiments of measurement theory and statistics....

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:26 | 4655731 Element
Element's picture

Tell it to Bob Carter, former head of JCU, he'll kick your arse all over the place.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 01:06 | 4655914 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Bob Carter?

This clown?

The guy that just got shitcanned because he was embarrasing the University he was adjunct to?

I'd take Bob on, no problem....


Mon, 04/14/2014 - 02:37 | 4655981 Element
Element's picture

Ah, flak's smear and shoot-the-messenger schtick.

No one has ever canned Bob Carter, it is of course a flat-out defamatory lie from a devious petty little prick.

"Carter retired from James Cook University in 2002, maintaining the status of "adjunct professor" until January 2013, when Carter's position of adjunct professor was not renewed. ... He was professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University from 1981 to 1998, an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005.
"Dr Carter's “official status” with JCU - where he had held an unpaid adjunct position since 2002 after retiring - had ended on 1 January 2013"

He worked there 24 years, retired, did work for the dept for free for another 8 years, and his adjunct status lapsed on new years day 2013, after a 32 year career in all of the most senior roles. He's a highly respected geologist of course. His association lapsed simply because he was busy doing about 25 other roles all over the world, and of course still is, and therefore was not going to be doing anything for JCU at any time soon so, the adjunct status was not renewed - no point.
But this according to you constitutes being "shit-canned" does it?  :D


You're truly are a pitiful desperate man wee flacco.


As for taking on Bob Carter, well, keep the dream alive eh.  :D

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 09:43 | 4656531 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

When was Bob's last peer-reviewed paper on climate science published?

Being on the fossil fuel industry payroll for the past few years is a clear tell for his academic integrity...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 10:26 | 4656669 Element
Element's picture

lol ... more to the point, when was yours?... superduper hero in your own warped mind ... time to play tankies ... off you go

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:33 | 4657258 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

nonexistent, because "a phd in 'physics' " is close enough for him to be a statistical pro and climate extraordinaire, right flake?


or is the vastly more likely situation of "well...this is what my tenured professors told me is true"....they of course being experts in the field of statistics as well as climate science and...


what, they werent experts in any of that stuff?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 05:06 | 4656106 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

re: "So I now do private consulting...." much for an hour with a happy ending?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 14:01 | 4657559 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

calling the IPCC estimates conservative...haha, that's rich...

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:35 | 4653326 Element
Element's picture

If you want to see how truly ridiculous the IPCC 'conservative consensus' is, and grasp the full dirt on what its predictions and projections are really being based on, nmewn, have a close read of this blog post - a real ripper:

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:43 | 4653485 agent default
agent default's picture

Well, they have to readjust their models every couple of years because their predictions do not match with recent  data.  These people are just frauds.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:03 | 4655410 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Maybe they're moonlighting from the IMF growth forecasting department?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:29 | 4653845 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

I prefer the anthropological view of climate change: It really is a religion that they are creating, albeit a secular one, in which these "scientists" with all of their incantations, rites, ceremonies, and pontifications seek to exercise control over the great unwashed masses. So, what's the purpose of this religion? Power over others, pure and simple, because they are smarter than you, oh don't ya know.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 20:31 | 4655327 Element
Element's picture

Oh yes, the Neo-Medieval period, beautifully said Dan, and so true, this does indeed seem to be the rough structure and intent.

I noticed the IPCC is today putting out its latest Book of Exodus report, or is it Deuteronomy? Anyway, you know the drill, pillars of fire , pyres and smoke, milk and honey if you do what you are told (pay through the nose and nod a lot). Burnt offerings and cow farts if you don't.

Oh boy, they're getting desperate to maintain traction on the masses now with this guff, but the more they try the more the propaganda falls flat (and the more it damages the UN too). But at least science is doing the work to recover its standing and integrity regardless, so I only hope the IPCC keep trying, the more they bleat nonsense the sooner they will be plowed under.  :D

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 22:42 | 4655621 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

It makes sense if you stop to think about it.

Like Erk Hoffer said in his classic on mass movements The True Believer, people look for something greater than themselves to give themselves over to, to lose their sense of individuality in something larger than they are that gives them purpose...and since "God is dead"...what better for a scientist than a secular religion to "save humanity".  

In former times it could have been communism, or naziism, or any of a number of "-isms" or religions, but this one is made to order for the "thinking man" who is still ideologically motivated.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:51 | 4655773 Element
Element's picture

Yes, it's a very simple mechanism as you state it but some mix of internal components in particular individuals seems to make them more prone to it than others. Some people don't fall for it (the heretics), while others can't help attaching limpet-like to some idea as a quasi-god savior project. Indeed many eastern philosophers made a point of describing how most people in society feel an overpowering urge to do that, and only a minority tend not to. And those usually became the society's monks and ascetics, etc.

It seems to be a common human theme, everywhere, and in the west the less compliant constitute the skeptics, heretics and outsider revolutionaries (in understanding), who make the scientific and technical breakthroughs (Tesla etc) and actually move things forwards, from the prior mass-deluded limpet-like mass-consensus.

The IPCC (and associated laughable consensus useless crap) is just one of these same daft anti-skeptic, anti-heretic, anti-free-thinking bogus consensus constructs, that always impairs the moving forwards of understanding, while the 'limpets' or 'disciples', act like human ballast, to keep it from facing facts and just rolling over.  :D  Facts like the temperature trend is declining for 17 years straight. So it's not that difficult to grasp/see what's happening there.

And I think we do just need to act accordingly, ignore them, or else smack them down if they want to contest the facts, and just move things ahead, in spite of their idiocy and limpet-like believer in nothings behavior.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 01:08 | 4655915 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Lots of words and empty rhetoric and not the slightest bit of real science....


Mon, 04/14/2014 - 12:35 | 4657265 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

and we get biased pal reviewed certified to prove AGW 100% with zero uncertainties from you...



how's them sea level predictions, flake?  do you really believe there's going to be 100 more meters of ocean all over the globe if we dont stop this runaway carbon dioxide problem?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:43 | 4653888 nmewn
nmewn's picture I hadn't seen that but it does buttress the view I've always held...

"The IPCC chapter on climate models appears to justify use of the models by saying they show an increase in temperature when CO2 is increased. Of course they do, that is how they’re programmed. Almost every individual component of the model has, by their admission, problems ranging from lack of data, lack of understanding of the mechanisms, and important ones are omitted because of inadequate computer capacity or priorities. The only possible conclusion is that the models were designed to prove the political position that human CO2 was a problem.

Scientists involved with producing this result knew the limitations were so severe they precluded the possibility of proving the result."

It is not called science when one starts out with a theory and then sets about to proving the theory is true. It is called science when one starts out with a theory and then sets out to DISPROVE it.

It is the only way one can keep their integrity intact and as we've seen, these people have none.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:44 | 4654020 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

Right, correlation is not causation.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:02 | 4655382 Element
Element's picture



"It is not called science when one starts out with a theory and then sets about to proving the theory is true. It is called science when one starts out with a theory and then sets out to DISPROVE it."

Correct! Top of the class nmewn, gold star for you! You don't ever assert a thing is true, you demonstrate that you couldn't disprove it (so far), and therefore propose that it may actually be true, so you invite others to test it and try to disprove it as well.

You never ever lambaste non-believers, you ENCOURAGE them! lol

And AGW has been disproven/falsified from the very beginning from as early as the mid-1970s datasets, using remedial level geohistory data, that was available even then. We had that data being taught in remedial and fundamentals levels textbooks in the 1970s (I still have some of the old textbooks which showed that very clearly). So we knew all along the data already falsified AGW, bit it was never about the actual data, it was abbout the GCMs and the theory being 'proven' by belief. ... lolz 

So there is only one thing to realize, and we all did, the entire greenhouse/global warming/climate-change/ AGW/CAGW mantra has been a perverse load of political rubbish from the outset. It was just a matter of showing that to the general public.

An thus the geological history (geoenvironmental history of the earth) has been entirely disregarded by the IPCC in favor of mere GIGO GCM models which are demonstrably bunk.

LOL! ... it's just non-brain stuff nmewn ... I'm glad you read that, and what a crushing post it is, for the whole absurd AGW charade.  :-D

As I write this I'm listening the perverse idiot 'greens leader' here, claiming Australia is facing an emergency 4 degree C temp rise average, in the near future.

Except the linear trend line of the actual data (as shown in the links above this sub-thread) has been slowly declining, for the past 17 years!

So it's indeed quite the 'emergency' ... a political emergency that is, for the wolves in sheep's panties.   :-D

Since 1987 we've now had 27 years of almost non-stop utter nonsense about AGW as they launched the combined greenhouse-gas, ozone-hole and acid-rain global scare campaign TV and magazine propaganda blitzkrieg on the world in the middle of that year.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:39 | 4655501 nmewn
nmewn's picture

It is the one theory in the "science of propaganda" I have found to be true...its a two step process.

First, declare something to be the truth. Second, cobble together some fellow travellers and then sit back & wait to call anyone who disagrees with the propaganda a heretic, a denier, impugne their character & motives and call upon others sitting on the fence to do the same.

The shortest route to test that theory is always the offensive act of confrontation with them, then you know.

Its science ;-)

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 22:40 | 4655611 Element
Element's picture

That's quite an insightful approach for testing the basic belief quotient of the proponent as an 'indicator' nmewn, nice one, but even then data is the only 'disprover'. I have literally had scientists adamantly tell me things for which they had zero data, only theory plus a detailed model of the theory ... to test the theory.

Can you imagine it? lol The circularity of it never even occurs to them! Mind blowing.

And it's frighteningly common in the most unexpected of institutions. These people have "Doctorates of Philosophy" in a science discipline's particular speciality, but without somehow understanding the role of empiricism, observation and ground-truthing of theory and its models.

It literally is a case of believe nothing and test everything in science, and the very suggestion by the IPCC and its drones that we should believe them and not question them is a global blatant religious attack on the process and philosophy of science itself.

Believe nothing and check everything just happens to be the zh Manifesto's recommendation from Tyler, which is one of the reasons why I think zh despite its warts as a domain, has real value towards that end.

Just look at how the HFT thing is now playing-out.

And the public revelation of HFT was all set rolling by one Tyler Durden of

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 19:58 | 4652494 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Welcome to Oilchemy.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 23:23 | 4653087 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

A couple of thoughts:

1) No one is ever going to put an official stamp on oil decline.  Folks should understand that hydrocarbon liquids have fairly specific definitions as to whether it is called crude oil or NGLs (natural gas liquids) or condensate.  If crude seems to be peaking and the price is spiking, some obscure sub department at the EIA will redefine the API rating for what sort of liquid is crude oil, and suddenly there will be more oil "produced" than last year.

2) This matters a great deal because of constituent fractions.  Crude has fractions . . . kerosene, diesel, as well as gasoline, heating oil, even asphalt.  In general you don't make diesel from gasoline.  That's not how it works,  Refineries take crude and separate the parts of it.  There is growing evidence that shale oil doesn't have the same diesel content as conventional oil on a barrel for barrel basis because shale flow has a lot of NGLs in it.  This matters a great deal to how society works.  Trucks that bring food to your grocery store need diesel.

3) Climate change really has no connection to the subject.  It has become politicized and . . . it doesn't bring food to shelves.  Somehow the climate folks have decided that they should piggyback their consciousness raising on oil discussion, and one supposes that's because there is money (for fundraising) around the world of oil.  Seems pointless in that if there are no alternatives to oil, no one is going to advocate starvation in order to keep temps a degree or two lower.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 04:08 | 4653379 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

3) Climate change really has no connection to the subject. It has become politicized

How else are the parasite class going to stay at the top of the food chain if they can no longer scare the masses into submitting themselves to the hamster debt ponzi wheel.

The end of the latest free lunch is in sight, and the PTB are desperately trying to get "plan B" up and running, but the peeps are becoming more and more aware...

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:03 | 4652512 kindape
kindape's picture

the author correctly posits that financial limits and non-linear risks abound - she made a forecast of energy production (and unspoken, about a 90% reduction in population). this is certainly POSSIBLE. though i would guess its 5-10%.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:08 | 4652535 novictim
novictim's picture

"...tree-cutting and burning of biomass for fuel. This will change land use besides adding emissions..."

No.  Tree biomass as practiced in many countries is a cyclical recycler of CO2 so no net production of CO2 occurs.

Scandinavia is leading the way on this smart use of land to husband the growth of trees for fuel.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:42 | 4652655 Newsboy
Newsboy's picture

Think Nepal, not Scandinavia.

Deforestation happens in desperate times.

Gail is talking collapse and mass die offs.

Forests will be ravaged, unless people die too quickly to ravage them.

Who to root for?

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 22:27 | 4652947 spinone
spinone's picture

I see what you did there

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:09 | 4652541 itchy166
itchy166's picture

We will run out of oil, or we won't, the climate will heat up, or it won't.  The best way to deal with either (or both) scenarios is to get government out of the equation and let the free market come up with solutions...

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:52 | 4652817 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Hah, itchy166, I will scratch that!

There is no such thing as a "free market," and there has never been, and never can be, unless one includes the free market in murder, which actually was how and why we ended up with governments, as the real result that emerged out of the free market in murder.

The essential problem with understanding human ecologies, and their relationship to their natural environment, is that the most important central feature, after life exists, is that the selection pressures which direct its evolution are the DEATH CONTROLS. It is bullshit nonsense to propose "free market solutions" unless one includes "free market murder." Rather, the way that the real world actually developed was due to the ways that the death controls operated, which were through the maximum possible deceits about themselves, since that made them the most successful. Furthermore, regarding that, in our society, the controlled opposition groups operate from within the same bullshit frame of reference about that as do the established powers.

As I laid out in my comment below, this kind of article draws out crazy comments, because different people propose their own preferred impossible ideals, as the ways to resolve these problems. Actually, the way that things will work is the same as always, which is that natural selection commensurates the incommensurables.

Human beings operate through dynamic equilibria between their systems of organized lies and robberies. There are no other genuine solutions than to continue to have to muddle through that madness. In that context, most of the comments posted on an article like the one above merely promote their own kinds of preferred magical madness, i.e., suggesting that the "free market" could provide better solutions than the "government." The governments that we have now are the expression of the history of the success of warfare based on deceits, segueing to become the financial system whose success was based on frauds. As those established systems run into real environmental limits, the results are practically guaranteed to be that civilization becomes crazier than it has ever been before, as we approach Peak Insanities.

The Grand Canyon of Paradoxes continues to be progress in science and technology, channeled through social pyramid systems operating through lies, backed by violence, reaching some real environmental limits of those systems, in the most completely crazy ways, due to human history selecting for society to develop systems controlled by deceits and frauds, in which everyone within those system play their own roles. Tragically, there are really no other better solutions than better death controls, which is why we are not getting agreements about any such solutions!

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 22:19 | 4652923 itchy166
itchy166's picture

I will take a free market in murder over the atrocities that governments of the 20th century have committed.  I stand a fighting chance over the psychopath down the street, but vs the armed mobs of government, I'm sorely outnumbered.

I have an idea for a better death control - stop giving food stamps to the idle...



Sat, 04/12/2014 - 23:46 | 4653128 Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Those may be some theoretical ideas, itchy166, BUT, we are stuck within the historical circumstances through which the existing system evolved. Governments emerged in the crucible of conflicts. The history of warfare selected for those groups who could prevail through the realities of those conflicts. The result was the surviving War Kings, whose systems became the foundation for the states with sovereign powers that exist today. Those sovereign powers were covertly taken over by the Fraud Kings, the bankers.

Governments are the result of the prolonged processes that assembled and channel the powers to rob, and to kill to back up that power to rob, into the forms that exist today. Whatever we might like, things which exist now simply do so, whether we like it or not! Most people who post comments on Zero Hedge tend to hate the current forms of government, for quite good reasons. However, we are still stuck within those systems.

Yet, it is entirely possible that the foreseeable future of things like runaway climate change, and/or limits to being able to continue to strip-mine the planet, are going to force us to go through dramatic changes, which again are not going to depend upon whether we like those or not.

As far as your suggestion of "stop giving food stamps to the idle." that barely scratches the surface of the theory of what artificial selection might look like, if it was not operated as dysgenetics, i.e., "eugenics" with evil ulterior purposes. However, my view is that almost all of those things are going to continue to be almost completely crazy, because almost nobody is going to agree upon what we should do, but rather, what actually happens will be the result of crazy compromises, made through out of control conflicts.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 08:46 | 4653591 PT
PT's picture

Wherever you have a bully, people will gang together to defeat the bully, and the gangs will gang together to beat gangs of bullies ... all the way until you have governments.  Then the govts become the unbeatable bullies until it all implodes and starts again.  To dream of a world without governments is to dream of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and any number of other fantasies.  You may get your wish for a little while, and then the world moves on.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:17 | 4653249 Adahy
Adahy's picture

Here's the issue:  Death and behavioral controls are intrinsic to the natural system.  When we fight the natural system, we negate the controls; setting up even greater consequences when everything eventually balances out, as it has to, and WILL DO.
Stop fighting the natural system.
Return to Eden.
It's our only hope.
Unfortunately, we have been trained to do the opposite; so the transition back will be extremely painful; but it will happen, whether we like it or not.


Sun, 04/13/2014 - 10:13 | 4653813 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

I agree, return to Eden, but Eden implies a lot of nice things that you and I now take for granted.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 23:34 | 4653098 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

You know, on every imaginable subject EXCEPT THIS ONE, you'd be right.

But from your own words "we will run out of oil, or we won't" . . . I can assure you, if we "run out of oil" the free market isn't going to have any solutions.  It will be sudden and cities won't get food and there is no capitalism in riots.  If there's no food, the water company workers are going to be out looking for some for their families and the water system will break down and then you have 48 hrs.  Capitalism isn't going to solve anything in 48 hrs.

In fact, government will have to solve the problem, by killing people with the military (hopefully in other countries) to reduce their oil consumption.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:13 | 4653172 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Unlikely we will run out overnight, unless this is some how planned or engineered.

In a free market system changes would be noticeable and somewhat manageable.

The utter waste of time and energy, and distraction of the masses by the "global warming" hysteria, is about as anti free market as one can get.

Instead, How about some accurate oil reserve/ depletion figures from KSA, so that people have a chance to assess and make their own arrangements.

The free market cannot function on incomplete, or faulty information!

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 00:38 | 4653212 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What a naive little narcissist, why the fuck should KSA tell you how much oil they think they really have?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:11 | 4653240 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture

Then let answer to their own people at a time and place of their peoples choosing.

Let them explain their "oil policies " to their own irate masses, when they have sold the last assets of their so called "kingdom"

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 01:22 | 4653258 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


Who are you to tell any other country what they should do....

Compared to most other other oil exporting nations the Saudis have been exemplary in management of their fields and at the least the masses there get a few crumbs thrown their way...

Perhaps you think the Nigerian model is better....

Or would you prefer that socialist utopia Norway?

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 02:09 | 4653309 Poor Grogman
Poor Grogman's picture


Lowering the quality of conversation.

Since 2010

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:50 | 4654040 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture


Pretty funny considering it's coming from a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect... 

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 21:08 | 4655421 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Oooh, Flakmeister gets her knickers in a twist when someone criticizes the Saudi dictatorship. Interesting.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 23:24 | 4655726 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nope, they are bunch of medieval era despots that happened to be on top of a bunch of oil...

Oil soothes the sting of even the greatest hypocrisies....

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 03:05 | 4653345 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

There are a lot of people whose jobs depend on maintaining the abundance narrative.  There won't be any warning. 

The API definition of crude will be changed to make the numbers look better, and that assumes Russia decides it wants to use that definition.  They could have their own definition.  So might KSA.  The numbers they report may not tell any story at all.

And so . . . there will never be an official stamp of acceptance placed on decline.  You can see that in the UK right now.  They have been declining output for a decade, but announced that they will spend some more money on drilling this year and expect a production increase.  No mention at all of the previous decline, just that they hope for an increase this year.

No one ever got elected telling the voters they are going to be miserable and die.  You're not going to be told.  Capitalism will have no time to do anything.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 06:39 | 4653484 Element
Element's picture

Because one day we will all wake up, and nowhere on earth will have any energy huh?

This absurd doomism is symptomatic of chronic mental weakness and probably a poor diet and substance induced mental stress.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 09:18 | 4653678 GoldenTool
GoldenTool's picture

No what happens is a oil producing/exporting country starts to use more and export less so a larger better armed country smashes them to keep the export flow going.  Libya, Iraq and Venezualia are examples of this.  When that can't happen the better armed larger country/group find a way to intercept pipelines to other end users so the energy goes were those with the biggest guns want it.  Afghanistan syria and the ukraine examples of this.


There is a chance if those pipelines get redirected you do wake up one day and get your chocolate rations doubled from 25 grams per day to 15.  Until then party on.  Of course if I'm aware of this that means people a lot more important then me are also and I would hope there is some plan other then watching people eat each other.  Maybe they are long popcorn...


"silentium est aurum"

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 11:37 | 4654009 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

There is no energy crisis.

There is an oil crisis.  And it will kill you.

Sun, 04/13/2014 - 12:42 | 4654170 BeansMcGreens
BeansMcGreens's picture

Takes alot of oil to produce food, everything from the fertilizer to getting it to walmart. Nobody wants to go hungry.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 00:08 | 4655808 Element
Element's picture

Yet somehow we survived prior to 1859.

We don't need oil to live, we use oil and we rapidly organized ourselves after 1859 to use oil and reap its windfall. In the same way the Germans rapidly reorganized themselves to use synthetics in WWII, when crude importation was denied. Still, it took the massive power of a huge Soviet army to defeat them.

We can and we will rapidly reorganize and that is the point that the chronic doomer wants to completely ignore and deny will occur, because ... well, because they want to ignore it. The deeper reason escapes me.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:21 | 4656073 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Lots of people didn't survive 1859. Take away the oil and the world's population will return to the same level as 1859. Massive human die-off. Billions will die. Probably 70% loss planet-wide.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 07:02 | 4656141 Element
Element's picture

Man, when I look at you, I really hope so.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 22:43 | 4663867 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Then you double-fail. I'm in incredibly good health, can survive with little food and am immune to many diseases such as influenza. That pretty much means I can count on you falling down for the count and I'll be just fine.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:20 | 4656072 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Look at how Joel Salatin addresses this. You can do this by hand with no petroleum.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:19 | 4656069 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"The free market cannot function on incomplete, or faulty information"

But it must - that is the only information that will ever be available.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 13:18 | 4657419 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

first intelligent thing I've ever seen you write

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 23:07 | 4663923 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

You're not even qualified to judge: one such as you with an IQ below 100 isn't able to determine how much smarter a person like me is, than you, or anyone.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 23:54 | 4653139 SubjectivObject
SubjectivObject's picture

"... and let the free market come up with solutions..."

Let's whack the oligarchs first,

and then talk about free markets.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 04:15 | 4656066 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture


When the warming keeps happening the humans are eradicated. At this rate within 200 years there will be zero humans left. Period. end of us.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:14 | 4652559 ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Too many people.

China and the East, South America, and Africa (as it is developed by China) will take up any slake in oil consumption of the Western World.

The real crux of the issue is mechanized agriculture that requires petroleum for tillage, herbicides/pesticides, harvesting, transport, processing/packaging, preservation, cooking.

Carbon based fuels do not cause global warming or climate change, but we are approaching peak humanity with regard to the food/water supply.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:46 | 4652671 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Popullution. It ghas been staring us in the face for at leasta century.           Milestones

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:50 | 4652684 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Popullution. It ghas been staring us in the face for at leasta century.           Milestones

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 21:01 | 4652723 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Government is the solution then. Those are great at getting rid of lots of people quickly. Not surprising that the IPCC is a branch of a club composed of the executive branches of the world's governments.

Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:19 | 4652573 Troy Ounce
Troy Ounce's picture



The IPCC are a bunch of hooligans with a financial interest in the continuation of the Climate Change narrative which is a Wall Street invented meme.

Unfortunately they have a shouting platform with the UN and therefore some MSM credibility.


Sat, 04/12/2014 - 20:23 | 4652588 magnetosphere
magnetosphere's picture

bankers peddling carbon credit default swaps

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!