# Peak Oil + The Second Little Ice Age + The Avian Flu Pandemic; or just pessimism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2005, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645 "2005-09-21T02:26:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/21 "2005-09-22T13:36:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Sorry, [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451459792/qid=1127360562/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_1/103-2256578-6588608?v=glance&s=books&n=507846](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451459792/qid=1127360562/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2256578-6588608?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Damn, but I hated that book. I actually stopped reading it. Stirling deserves a good swift kick in the balls for merely _conceiving_ it. On the OP. I agree that it’s ALWAYS the end of times for someone. There’s real money to be made in doomsaying, make no mistake about it. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/22 "2005-09-22T15:43:39Z")
Blake, Peak oil first. The problem right now is how those predictions are being made. Again, I’m no oil expert. My source is [this recent NYTimes Magazine article](http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=124&magtype=1) which seemed quite well researched to me. It includes ome reputable sources … > [@](#): > > Sadad al-Husseini, who retired last year after serving as Aramco’s top executive for exploration and production … It can be argued that in a nation devoted to oil, Husseini knows more about it than anyone else. Born in Syria, Husseini was raised in Saudi Arabia, where his father was a government official whose family took on Saudi citizenship. Husseini earned a Ph.D. in geological sciences from Brown University in 1973 and went to work in Aramco’s exploration department, eventually rising to the highest position. Until his retirement last year — said to have been caused by a top-level dispute, the nature of which is the source of many rumors — Husseini was a member of the company’s board and its management committee. He is one of the most respected and accomplished oilmen in the world. … The message he delivered was clear: the world is heading for an oil shortage. His warning is quite different from the calming speeches that Naimi and other Saudis, along with senior American officials, deliver on an almost daily basis. Husseini explained that the need to produce more oil is coming from two directions. Most obviously, demand is rising; in recent years, global demand has increased by two million barrels a day. (Current daily consumption, remember, is about 84 million barrels a day.) Less obviously, oil producers deplete their reserves every time they pump out a barrel of oil. This means that merely to maintain their reserve base, they have to replace the oil they extract from declining fields. It’s the geological equivalent of running to stay in place. Husseini acknowledged that new fields are coming online, like offshore West Africa and the Caspian basin, but he said that their output isn’t big enough to offset this growing need. > ‘‘You look at the globe and ask, ‘Where are the big increments?’ and there’s hardly anything but Saudi Arabia,’’ he said. ‘‘The kingdom and Ghawar field are not the problem. That misses the whole point. The problem is that you go from 79 million barrels a day in 2002 to 82.5 in 2003 to 84.5 in 2004. You’re leaping by two million to three million a year, and if you have to cover declines, that’s another four to five million.’’ In other words, if demand and depletion patterns continue, every year the world will need to open enough fields or wells to pump an additional six to eight million barrels a day — at least two million new barrels a day to meet the rising demand and at least four million to compensate for the declining production of existing fields. ‘‘That’s like a whole new Saudi Arabia every couple of years,’’ Husseini said. ‘‘It can’t be done indefinitely. It’s not sustainable.’’ > Husseini speaks patiently, like a teacher who hopes someone is listening. He is in the enviable position of knowing what he talks about while having the freedom to speak openly about it. He did not disclose precise information about Saudi reserves or production — which remain the equivalent of state secrets — but he felt free to speak in generalities that were forthright, even when they conflicted with the reassuring statements of current Aramco officials. When I asked why he was willing to be so frank, he said it was because he sees a shortage ahead and wants to do what he can to avert it. I assumed that he would not be particularly distressed if his rivals in the Saudi oil establishment were embarrassed by his frankness. > Although Matthew Simmons says it is unlikely that the Saudis will be able to produce 12.5 million barrels a day or sustain output at that level for a significant period of time, Husseini says the target is realistic; he says that Simmons is wrong to state that Saudi Arabia has reached its peak. But 12.5 million is just an interim marker, as far as consuming nations are concerned, on the way to 15 million barrels a day and beyond — and that is the point at which Husseini says problems will arise. … Experts like Husseini are very concerned by the prospect of trying to produce 15 million barrels a day. Even if production can be ramped up that high, geology may not be forgiving. Fields that are overproduced can drop off, in terms of output, quite sharply and suddenly, leaving behind large amounts of oil that cannot be coaxed out with existing technology. This is called trapped oil, because the rocks or sediment around it prevent it from escaping to the surface. Unless new technologies are developed, that oil will never be extracted. In other words, the haste to recover oil can lead to less oil being recovered. > ‘‘You could go to 15, but that’s when the questions of depletion rate, reservoir management and damaging the fields come into play,’’ says Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi oil and security analyst who is regarded as being exceptionally well connected to key Saudi leaders. ‘‘There is an understanding across the board within the kingdom, in the highest spheres, that if you’re going to 15, you’ll hit 15, but there will be considerable risks . . . of a steep decline curve that Aramco will not be able to do anything about.’’ > Even if the Saudis are willing to risk damaging their fields, or even if the risk is overstated, Husseini points out a practical problem. To produce and sustain 15 million barrels a day, Saudi Arabia will have to drill a lot more wells and build a lot more pipelines and processing facilities. Currently, the global oil industry suffers a deficit of qualified engineers to oversee such projects and the equipment and the raw materials — for example, rigs and steel — to build them. These things cannot be wished from thin air or developed quickly enough to meet the demand. > ‘‘If we had two dozen Texas A&M’s producing a thousand new engineers a year and the industrial infrastructure in the kingdom, with the drilling rigs and power plants, we would have a better chance, but you cannot put that into place overnight,’’ Husseini said. ‘‘Capacity is not just a function of reserves. It is a function of reserves plus know-how plus a commercial economic system that is designed to increase the resource exploitation. For example, in the U.S. you have infrastructure — there must be tens of thousands of miles of pipelines. If we, in Saudi Arabia, evolve to that level of commercial maturity, we could probably produce a heck of a lot more oil. But to get there is a very tedious, slow process.’’ > He worries that the rising global demand for oil will lead to the petroleum equivalent of running an engine at ever-increasing speeds without stopping to cool it down or change the oil. Husseini does not want to see the fragile and irreplaceable reservoirs of the Middle East become damaged through wanton overproduction. > ‘‘If you are ramping up production so fast and jump from high to higher to highest, and you’re not having enough time to do what needs to be done, to understand what needs to be done, then you can damage reservoirs,’’ he said. ‘‘Systematic development is not just a matter of money. It’s a matter of reservoir dynamics, understanding what’s there, analyzing and understanding information. That’s where people come in, experience comes in. These are not universally available resources.’’ > The most worrisome part of the crisis ahead revolves around a set of statistics from the Energy Information Administration, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The E.I.A. forecast in 2004 that by 2020 Saudi Arabia would produce 18.2 million barrels of oil a day, and that by 2025 it would produce 22.5 million barrels a day. Those estimates were unusual, though. They were not based on secret information about Saudi capacity, but on the projected needs of energy consumers. The figures simply assumed that Saudi Arabia would be able to produce whatever the United States needed it to produce. Just last month, the E.I.A. suddenly revised those figures downward — not because of startling new information about world demand or Saudi supply but because the figures had given so much ammunition to critics. Husseini, for example, described the 2004 forecast as unrealistic. > ‘‘That’s not how you would manage a national, let alone an international, economy,’’ he explained. ‘‘That’s the part that is scary. You draw some assumptions and then say, ‘O.K., based on these assumptions, let’s go forward and consume like hell and burn like hell.’’’ When I asked whether the kingdom could produce 20 million barrels a day — about twice what it is producing today from fields that may be past their prime — Husseini paused for a second or two. It wasn’t clear if he was taking a moment to figure out the answer or if he needed a moment to decide if he should utter it. He finally replied with a single word: No. > ‘‘It’s becoming unrealistic,’’ he said. ‘‘The expectations are beyond what is achievable. This is a global problem . . . that is not going to be solved by tinkering with the Saudi industry.’’ I’d be interested in your comments on the whole article. As to global warming, to argue that there is rasoned debate because you can find a few partisan hacks shilling is exactly like arguing that there is a reasoned debate in biology circles about whether or not evolution exists. Consensus is near uniform. Here is an article from Science regarding the [latest consensus views](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5709/497a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&titleabstract=global+warming&searchid=1127403178897_6571&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&tocsectionid=special%2FnewsAORBn-weekAORBn-focusAORBs-scopeAORBr-samplesAORBn-commentAORBnewsAORBr-news&tocsectionid=special%2FintroAORBspecial%2FreviewAORBspecial%2FviewpointAORBviewpointsAORBcompviewpointAORBessaysAORBperspectiveAORBvisionsAORBpathwayAORBt-sightAORBspecial%2FperspectiveAORBreview&fdate=10/1/2004&tdate=9/30/2005) and which direction dissenting views are generally going. > [@](#): > > Last summer, a gathering of climate modelers, paleoclimatologists, and other climate researchers seemed to be converging on a middle ground (Science, 13 August 2004, p. 932). Three different kinds of studies–a collection of the latest expert-designed climate models, perturbations of a single model, and studies of past climate–addressed the question of how sensitively the climate will respond to increasing greenhouse gases. All three seemed to be pointing to a moderately strong sensitivity. When greenhouse gases are doubled, it appeared, warming would be something like 2ºC to 4°C. A low, nearly harmless climate sensitivity much less than 2ºC seemed quite unlikely, and an extreme one of more than 6ºC or 7ºC was possible but far less likely than the consensus range. … > > Now comes modeler David Stainforth of the University of Oxford, U.K., and 15 colleagues with their pumped-up version of the perturbed-parameter approach. In a similar study reported at last summer’s workshop and in Nature, James Murphy of the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter, U.K., and colleagues altered 29 model variables that control physical properties such as the behavior of clouds, atmospheric convection, and winds. Given their available computing resources, they had to perturb only one parameter at a time for a total of 53 simulations. In order to extrapolate their results into the high-sensitivity range, they had to assume that changes in two parameters simply add up. > > In the Stainforth study, published this week in Nature, the modelers varied six parameters several at a time so that they could explore nonlinear interactions between parameters. … In this distributed-computing study, perturbed parameters did in fact interact nonlinearly to heighten climate sensitivity. None of the simulations had a climate sensitivity less than 2ºC, in line with expectations. And most simulations did not fall far from the model’s sensitivity of 3.4ºC when run with no parameters perturbed. But the inevitable long tail of results on the high-sensitivity side ran out to 11ºC, 2ºC farther than any kind of study before it. > > How likely is an 11ºC sensitivity? “We can’t yet give a probability for our results,” says Stainforth. “Our [high-end] results are very sensitive to our prior assumptions,” such as which parameters are perturbed and by how much. Previous studies suffer from the same limitations, he says. And as to the comments about hurricanes … I specifically did not say more, I said worse. Simple facts: hurricanes really are becoming more severe consistent with global warming models. Also from [Science](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5742/1844) > [@](#): > > We examined the number of tropical cyclones and cyclone days as well as tropical cyclone intensity over the past 35 years, in an environment of increasing sea surface temperature. A large increase was seen in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5. The largest increase occurred in the North Pacific, Indian, and Southwest Pacific Oceans, and the smallest percentage increase occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean. These increases have taken place while the number of cyclones and cyclone days has decreased in all basins except the North Atlantic during the past decade. > … We conclude that global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones Of course there is always uncertainty. We do not know how bad global warming will be, just probabilities of how bad it will be. We do not exactly when peak oil will hit or what the global consequences will be. Ten, thirty, longer? We did not know when a Cat 3 or higher hurricane would hit N.O.s either. But in retrospect the monies to have upgraded the levees sure seem like a bargain now. We do now that the risk of peak oil is increasing dramatically and that the reassurances otherwise seem to based on little actual data and given by those who are well motivated to reassure us. We do know that global warming is occurring and that the consequence is mor likely devasting than inconsequential if left unchecked. If you want to refer to children’s stories I think that Chicken Little is less apt than the ant and the grasshopper. Prepare now. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/23 "2005-09-22T16:02:45Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > None of which has any bearing on whether the OP’s concerns are well founded or not. Lots of poor predictions are no guide to the accuracy of current unrelated ones, they have to be evaluated on their own merits. I might note that, for instance, the Cuban crisis might well have triggered a nuclear war which, while not Mass Extinction (did anyone really think that at the time?) would have definitely been an End Of Civilisation As We Know It situation. Hardy in the same category as Nero. > > Yes, you can. Are you? Am I doing something? I walk where I want to go. If it is too far to walk, I take public transportation. That is about all I can do as far as oil useage. I haven’t started any nuclear wars lately, or melted any ice shelfs, so I guess that counts too. If instead the question “are you” means am I worrying, then the answer is “No”. My point in bringing up past historical cries of “We’re all gonna die” was that every age has had their prophets of doom. So far, they’ve been wrong, no matter what the “method of destruction” was. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/24 "2005-09-22T23:15:20Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I’d be interested in your comments on the whole article. My comments are the same as those given by Sir James Foots 30 years again the speech I quoted form above. The article refers exclusively to reserves, it never mentions resources nor does it make any attempt to take into account changing technology or the impact of rising prices on infrastructure. In short this isn’t a new argument, it’s precisely the same argument that we’ve seen from doomsayers since the 1920s, with all the same flaws. I can justifiably call it Chicken Little stuff because the same predictions have been made and failed every year for the last 70 years for the same reason. > [@](#): > > As to global warming, to argue that there is rasoned debate because you can find a few partisan hacks shilling is exactly like arguing that there is a reasoned debate in biology circles about whether or not evolution exists. Dude that’s just a blatant ad hominem. These people are not partisan hacks, they are highly reputable scientists published in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals. This issue is still the subject of considerable scientific debate, that is a fact and I have provided references to prove it. To ad to the list of fallacies you combine the ad hominem attack in these scientists with a sloppy analogy. When you can show me an article by reputable scientists in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals about whether evolution exists your analogy will have some merit. Until then this entire line of reasoning is clearly based on an erroneous belief that scientists are no longer debating this issue in journals. I have proven that this is not the case and unless you can do better than ad hominem attacks on scientists/entire journals that disagree with you and sloppy analogies with no basis I think we can leave it there > [@](#): > > Consensus is near uniform. Firstly we are discussing science. Science is not done by consensus. Or to quote Cecil Adams, we don’t take votes on the facts. 100 years ago consensus was near uniform that special creation had occurred. 50 years ago consensus was near uniform hat continental drift didn’t occur. 10 years ago consensus was near uniform that gastric ulcers weren’t microbial in origin. Near uniform consensus in science is meaningless. Science is useful only because an argumentum ad populum has no standing. Secondly consensus is not near uniform. You provided a reference that suggested that of those scientists who endorse global warming some middle ground is being approached. Similarly of those scientists who believe in string theory much middle ground has been reached. But neither of those things has any where near uniform consensus. Note the difference between supporters of a theory reaching consensus and the theory itself having achieved consensus. > [@](#): > > And as to the comments about hurricanes … I specifically did not say more, I said worse. What you actually said was “Get used to Katrina intensity storms”. That means that they will become more common and thus will need to be accepted, ie. Gotten used to. So yeah, you did say there would be more of them. Unless of course you are trying to argue that “get used to it’ doesn’t mean “this will be commonplace/standard” where you come from. In which case “Cite!” > [@](#): > > We do now that the risk of peak oil is increasing dramatically No we do not know that at all. We know that it is increasing as it must over time. But to declare that we know that it is increasing dramatically is just balderdash. > [@](#): > > We do know that global warming is occurring and that the consequence is mor likely devasting than inconsequential if left unchecked. No, we don’t know that. A great many scientists and economist have said that the consequences are far more likely benign or neutral than devastating. You do this repeatedly. You state that something is ‘known’ and ‘settled’ when in fact it is not known and is the subject of massive and heated debate. Can you actually provide a reference that any of these things is known as you claim them to be? I won’t be too tough on you here, known to the standard scientific significance of 95% is all that I require. Cite! > [@](#): > > If you want to refer to children’s stories I think that Chicken Little is less apt than the ant and the grasshopper. Prepare now. No, when people make the same dire warnings based on the same evidence for 70 years and the warning is proven false then that is chicken little. I’m not kidding here, these warnings of oil being depleted within 30 years have been around since the 1920s. That’s a genuine 1975 speech I quoted up there. This is Chicken Little. The sky is always falling and the reasons why it is falling haven’t changed. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/25 "2005-09-23T01:06:19Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Firstly we are discussing science. Science is not done by consensus. Or to quote Cecil Adams, we don’t take votes on the facts. > > 100 years ago consensus was near uniform that special creation had occurred. 50 years ago consensus was near uniform hat continental drift didn’t occur. 10 years ago consensus was near uniform that gastric ulcers weren’t microbial in origin. Near uniform consensus in science is meaningless. Science is useful only because an argumentum ad populum has no standing. That is right, there is no voting in of the facts. They either are, or are not. We can’t bring gravity up to a vote and repeal it. > [@Blake](#): > > Secondly consensus is not near uniform. You provided a reference that suggested that of those scientists who endorse global warming some middle ground is being approached. Similarly of those scientists who believe in string theory much middle ground has been reached. But neither of those things has any where near uniform consensus. Note the difference between supporters of a theory reaching consensus and the theory itself having achieved consensus. Some artificially derived middle ground has no place in science, any more than concensus does. Something either is, or isn’t. There may be a middle ground in a theory or hypothesis, but these imply “this explanation will work until something better comes along”. > [@Blake](#): > > … something is ‘known’ and ‘settled’ when in fact it is not known and is the subject of massive and heated debate. I like the lines from Men In Black, which are pretty “heavy” if you pay attention… “People knew the earth was flat. Yesterday you knew were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.” That last sentence proves that there is beauty in elegant simplicity. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow. > [@Blake](#): > > This is Chicken Little. The sky is always falling and the reasons why it is falling haven’t changed. We’ve always been doomed, one way or another. The prophets of doom have always been wrong. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/26 "2005-09-23T03:01:22Z")
**Blake** , did you even read what I put in the quote box, let alone the actual article? Because resources are specifically discussed. Again, I’m no expert on oil, but when people as informed and as connected as Sadad al-Husseini and Nawaf Obaid tell us that producing more than 15 million a year is “not sustainable” even if the infrastructure was present, then I think we would be foolish to call “Chicken Little” and just go on with business as usual. Just before Katrina hit I remember hearing interviews of people staying put, saying essentially, “Ach, I’ve lived through hurricanes before and they told us before that the safest thing to do would be to leave then. Chicken Littles. I’ll be fine this time too.” Always a good tactic that. Global warming. Even Bush concedes global warming is a reality by this point. He has couched his position as trying to find a better way to deal with it that does not require any actual sacrifice or hard work. The National Academy of Science has concluded global warming is real and likely to be a significant danger. Multiple types of models and predictions based on past records all conclude that more greenhouse gases will cause more increases in temperature and climate instability (articles like the _one_ you cited by Loehle) merely question if we can prove that the currrent global warming that has already occurred is provably directly attributable to human sources, not whether or not further increases in greenhouse gases will exacerbate the natural trend, and cause even more significant temperature increases and climate volatility in the future. There is uncertainty because of the nature of data that is less than perfect, but the uncertainty centers around how bad it is going to be, not whether it is going to be bad. And as to the philosophy of science … unless each of us want to become an expert on each subject and review all the data available on every subject then the consensus of the community of scientific experts is what we have to go on. There clearly is a vast consensus about global warming. Look hard and you’ll find the one or two with a minority view you like. Make yourself comfortable and do just that. BTW, Katrina and Rita are not abberations. There have been and likely will be more intense hurricanes than before (not more hurricanes per se, more intense ones). Cite? Do you read posts you respond to? I provided the cite already. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/27 "2005-09-23T03:40:24Z")
Dseid you are moving the goalposts. The issue is not whether it is sensible to accept majority opinion on scientific issues outside our fields of expertise, that’s a red herring. The issue is whether you were talking nonsense when you said that there is no debate on this issue in the scientific community. I’ve provided references proving that there is indeed debate on this issue in the scientific community. It appears that your only response is that any scientist who publishes in areputab;e journal is a fringe lunatic if they disagree with you. This might be a nice time for you to concede that the issue is being debated by scientists and that your repeated assertions to the contrary are incorrect. Until you can do that we really don’t have much to discuss since you are apparently happy to ignore the facts and pretend that you were in fact simply saying that you believed majority opinion. You didn’t say that, you said that this issue was settled amongst scientist and not open to debate. I calls bullshit. I await either a retraction or some evidence to support your claim and show that the scientists I know of are not in fact scientists or aranotin fact debating the issue. I have similarly asked for supporting evidence for your claim that we ‘know’ global warming is occurring and we know it is most likely to be devastating in effect. You similarly claimed that powerful hurricanes will become more common, then claimed that you didn’t say any such thing. I have shown that you did make this claim. Please respond to that as well. Until you respond to those requests at the very least we can not engage in debate. You are simply throwing out statements of the absolute with no evidence at all and refusing to ever retract the, That isn’t a debate, it’s simply you arguing form assertion. Unless you can provide evidence then there is no way of knowing whether any of what you say is true. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/28 "2005-09-23T12:15:27Z")
Blake you provided one cite of one article that only stated that the global warming that is occurring has some possibility of not having been caused by human activity. Not any cites about whether or not our increasing levels of human induced greeenhouse gases will cause more global warming. Or if you did I missed it. Find me a large body of scientists who debate whether or not our increasing levels of greenhouse gases are likely going to raise temperatures significantly. “No debate” may have been an overstatement, no significant debate I will stand by. For the vast vast majority of the scientific community involved in global modelling and trends, the presence of global warming and potential dangers of continued increases in greenhouse gases are established items. The probabilities of how bad are still open to debate with the most recent most powerful models leaving more potential for the worst outcomes. Hurricanes, the quote you took offense to was “Get used to Katrina intensity storms. Surface water temperatures drive hurricane intensity.” and I then backed it up at your challenge with a quote from my source, an article which documented “global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones.” This a long term trend that has been documented. Hurricanes are becoming more severe. Questions? ---
**Author:** ![Mycroft\_Holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a5b964/32.png) [@Mycroft\_Holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mycroft_Holmes)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/29 "2005-09-23T12:38:58Z")
> [@archmichael](#): > > **So reassure me that I am wrong.** Well, we’re way overdue for a major impact event probably leading to mass (or even total) extinction. You can zig or zag as much as you want if one of those happens, and there won’t be a damn thing you can do. Some 20km diameter rock could be heading our way right now, and we probably wouldn’t know until a couple of seconds before being vaporized. So you see, there’s no reason to worry about peak oil, another ice age, or the avian flu. Just trying to cheer you up. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/30 "2005-09-23T15:33:08Z")
Anyway **Blake** , I’d prefer to focus on where we generally agree. Methodical preparation is prudent. Peak oil is a bit of an unknown since only the Saudis know what the data really is and they are not sharing it. Again I take well informed and well conected experts warnings seriously. Global warming is well established as occurring and anthrogenic sources ae modelled by multiple sorts of models in multiple hands as likely contributing to very significant future consequences. We will be unable to say that no one expected the levees to break. There will be no excuses for our being unprepared. The sky is not falling but a storm is afoot. Me, I think we should invest in few umbrellas, or not complain when we get wet. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/31 "2005-09-23T16:00:29Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > That is right, there is no voting in of the facts. They either are, or are not. We can’t bring gravity up to a vote and repeal it. Too bad. Just think – if we could repeal the law of gravity, say just over a small part of Florida, it would make rocketships a lot easier to launch. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/32 "2005-09-23T18:12:15Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Too bad. Just think – if we could repeal the law of gravity, say just over a small part of Florida, it would make rocketships a lot easier to launch. that would be a cool idea - we’d save a bundle just on fuel. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/33 "2005-09-23T20:25:21Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, when people make the same dire warnings based on the same evidence for 70 years and the warning is proven false then that is chicken little. > > I’m not kidding here, these warnings of oil being depleted within 30 years have been around since the 1920s. That’s a genuine 1975 speech I quoted up there. This is Chicken Little. The sky is always falling and the reasons why it is falling haven’t changed. Indeed. My third grade science book contained the solemn prediction that we were going to use up our oil supply in twenty to thirty years. Here it is twenty years later and the **same** thing is still being said today. If it’s not Chicken Little, it’s sure The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I suspect that the discovery of additional sources of oil is the primary reason the prediction is “revised” to sound exactly like the older ones, but you rarely see the addendum “if no additional oil reserves are discovered” on these warnings, which would give them more credibility. I guess credible gets less play than controversial… ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/34 "2005-09-24T14:42:29Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > but you rarely see the addendum “if no additional oil reserves are discovered” on these warnings, which would give them more credibility. I guess credible gets less play than controversial… What sells more newspapers, or gets higher TV ratings? “Everything is great, we’re doing fine”, or “Total chaos! We’re all screwed!”? Sooner or later, we probably will have to start using something other than oil. It is a finite resource. We already have coal, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric, etc. It seems to be a matter of economics and the desire to do it, more than technology. There are huge deposits of shale oil. We don’t use it because of the cost involved, but it’s there. Economics. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Is\_Schwa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8baadc/32.png) [@What\_Is\_Schwa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Is_Schwa)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/35 "2005-09-24T18:28:28Z")
I’d like to poke my nose in here for a moment and point out that there is a lot more going on with oil than just getting you to work everyday. For example, the farming industry is absurdly dependant on _cheap_ energy. From fertilizers to how they move their machines out on the feild to irrigation methods. In addition, food is shipped for minimal costs to your local stores. I make no claims that the sky is falling. However, I would like you to ask yourself what our means to produce food for 7 billion people are without cheap energy. About the “Energy Crisis” i’m not worried. As long is there is money to be made off energy I have confidence that human greed will motivate someone to provide a solution. Ahh, good ol’ human nature! ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/36 "2005-09-24T20:06:56Z")
> [@What Is Schwa](#): > > I’d like to poke my nose in here for a moment and point out that there is a lot more going on with oil than just getting you to work everyday. For example, the farming industry is absurdly dependant on _cheap_ energy. From fertilizers to how they move their machines out on the feild to irrigation methods. In addition, food is shipped for minimal costs to your local stores. > > I make no claims that the sky is falling. However, I would like you to ask yourself what our means to produce food for 7 billion people are without cheap energy. > > About the “Energy Crisis” i’m not worried. As long is there is money to be made off energy I have confidence that human greed will motivate someone to provide a solution. Ahh, good ol’ human nature! [Michael Douglas] Greed is GOOD![Michael douglas] 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/37 "2005-09-24T22:24:23Z")
Peak Oil - From my limited perspective on the subject, my understanding of the Peak Oil issue isn’t so much we are reaching the point where we’ve used up 50% of the world’s oil; but rather we’ve reached the point where the cost of extracting it has reached it’s limit in terms of diminished returns. In other words, the days of relatively cheap oil are over - based on current capacity to extract/refine it coupled with continued rising demand for it. Not necessarily a doomsday scenario, but given our (US) reliance on relatively cheap oil and it’s importance to the economy it will become increasing problematic if we aren’t ready and willing to adjust to higher oil prices. Yes, I am fully aware that increased oil prices will spur development and use of alternative energy sources; but if the increase in oil prices is rapid and dramatic over a short period of time, then it can have major economic implications. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/38 "2005-09-25T19:13:54Z")
In regards to the article… Saudi Arabia has 80 known oil fields… and produces on only nine of them. In 1944, proven Saudi reserves were 16 billion and another 5 billion probable. In 1975, after 42 billion barrels produced, there were 74 billion proven reserves. 14 years later, proven reserves in the same region were increased by 199 billion to the current 261 billion in proven Saudi reserves. This number has not be refined downward even though Saudi oil production has happily percolated along at the rate of 9,000,000 barrels per day, 3.2 billion per year, 52.6 billion barrels since they last revised their proven reserve estimates. Saudi Arabia can “easily” go to 20,000,000 barrels a day. They don’t want to because they fear it will flood the world petroleum market because _oil fears and panics are an OPEC marketing tool_. In 2005, a single province in Canada [increased it’s proven reserves figure by _175 billion_](http://www.forbes.com/energy/2005/02/17/cz_0217oxan_canadaoil.html) (equal to Iraq’s current proven reserves) barrels as new, cheaper means of extracting oil from shale came online. This is usable oil, not “if they get the technology to use it” oil, but oil that is currently being sold on the world markets. This 175 billion in oil represents only 11% of the oil that lies in Alberta (over 1 _trillion_ barrels), but that oil is either too hard or too expensive to develop with current technology. Also, these estimates were made when petroleum was in the mid-thirties per barrel. Now that it’s in the mid-sixties, the proven column actually _increases_, meaning that at current market rates far more of the oil is recoverable, not just 11%. That report that was “debunked” in the article? Mentions nothing of the fact that Albertan oil will produce 2 million bbd within the decade, and it actually has Canadian production dropping by 25% (to 1.6 million bbd) over the next 20 years! (I know 'cause I have it in my lap. (The International Energy Outlook is available [here](http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/) for free.) So if it errs, it errs on the side of caution as it only focuses on _proven_ reserves, i.e., those reserves that can be extracted at current market and technological rates, not the actual amount of extractable oil in the world, which easily runs into the trillions of barrels. Even the “proven” reserves figure bandied about so casually adds up to over 1 trillion barrels. Cites: [The Oil Reserve Fallacy: Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply](http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/index.html), Bill Kovarik. [The Real Oil Problem](http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf), M. A. Adelman ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/39 "2005-09-25T19:25:07Z")
> [@](#): > > This number has not be refined “Has not _been revised_” … “refined” :rolleyes: 😉 ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645/40 "2005-09-25T19:26:14Z")
Ugh. Sometimes I just hate it when you can’t edit. ☹ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peak-oil-the-second-little-ice-age-the-avian-flu-pandemic-or-just-pessimism/322645.md?page=1)