(Swedish below)
Today, DN (Dagens Nyheter – Sweden’s leading newspaper) published a contribution by me in their ”DN-Debate” column regarding the emission scenarios that the IPCC recommends climate researchers use when calculating future temperature increases. In climate research literature one often sees discussion of the scenario families A1, A2, B1 and B2 and in various situations it is common to see this temperature graph:
The scenario family A2 is discussed in my contribution to “DN-Debate” (read article in English below and read it in Swedish on “DN Debatt“).
The first time that we published a report discussing the IPCC’s emissions scenarios was in 2003 when my student Anders Sivertsson presented his diploma thesis (Study of World Oil Resources with a Comparison to IPCC Emissions Scenarios). Both New Scientist (read article) and CNN (read the news article) drew attention to this work. Those responsible for the IPCC report on emission scenarios dismissed our work with the comment/excuse that too much coal exists. Some thought that I should not discuss this question since it does not benefit the climate debate.
In the autumn of 2007 I was asked by the OECD whether I could write a report on future oil production. During this work the task was expanded such that I should also write a report on future emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels (read the report). In May 2008 during the World Transport Forum in Leipzig I had the opportunity to deliver my report in person to Rajendra Pachuri, the current chairperson of the IPCC. Of course, I expected that the IPCC would subsequently want to contact me but they have been completely silent. The Swedish representative for the IPCC has received the report, as have political parties, individual politicians and other influential people around the world – the report is accessible for all. However, nobody appears to have reacted. It seems as though one may not criticise the IPCC.
The EU’s newly appointed Environment Commissioner Connie Hedegaard published the following statement last Saturday in the DN-Debate column:
”There are moments in history when the world can choose alternative paths. The Climate Conference COP15 in Copenhagen is one of the decisive moments: We can choose to take the road to green wellbeing and a more sustainable future. Or we can choose a path to to deadlock and not do anything at all about the climate negotiations, which will leave an enormous bill for our children and grandchildren to pay.”
Many believe that, in purely physical terms, two paths forward exist. One that continues straight ahead as before, “Business As Usual”, and an alternative path that veers off to a transformed energy system where renewable energy becomes necessary. Our research shows that two alternative paths do not exist. The “Business As Usual” path will soon collapse and that means that the path to a new energy system must be built now. Our hope is that the delegates in Copenhagen realise that only one path exists. I am also thinking about my grandchildren’s future.
DN-Debate
”The UN’s future scenarios for climate are pure fantasy”
In the year 2000, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published 40 different future scenarios in which emissions from oil, natural gas and coal were specified. In the past 9 years these scenarios have been the guiding star for the world’s climate researchers. The IPCC has described why these researchers should follow them. The scenarios “are built as descriptions of possible, rather than preferred, developments. They represent pertinent, plausible, alternative futures”. Despite the fact that emissions from fossil fuels vary widely between the scenarios, the IPCC regarded all the scenarios as equally likely.
Among these scenarios exist the future horror stories that people such as Al Gore have warned us about. These go by the name of “Business As Usual”. Climate calculations that are based on these emission levels give an average temperature increase of 3.5 °C above 1990 levels by 2100. Some of these scenarios exceed +6 °C.
Globally, human activity generates greenhouse gasses and emissions increase at the same rate as the population increases. Today, 57% of greenhouse gasses come from fossil fuel. The big issue in Copenhagen is future emissions from these fossil fuels. I have a different view of the situation than the IPCC and my view is based on scientific publications from the Global Energy Systems research group at Uppsala University, Sweden. We can now show that almost all of the IPCC emissions scenarios are improbable and that those scenarios described as “Business as Usual” are completely unrealistic. (Ten publications relevant to this article can be accessed from the home page of Global Energy Systems, www.fysast.uu.se/ges)
In May 2007 the Debate column of Dagens Nyheter [Sweden’s most widely read broadsheet newspaper] published my article on climate titled, “Severe climate change unlikely before we run out of fossil fuel”. An article with the title, “The Peak of the Oil Age” has recently been published in the scientific journal Energy Policy. From the research reported in that paper we can now state that there will be insufficient oil in future since production will decline. Therefore, emissions from use of oil will decline by at least 10% by 2030. This reduction will be even greater if the global economy is negatively affected.
The climate change negotiators main question should therefore be, “How will we use coal in the future?”.
Today’s coal production – hard coal and brown coal – is approximately 3000 million “tonne of oil equivalent” (toe). For the “Business as Usual” scenarios coal production must increase seven-fold by 2100. That is an increase of 600%. In the last 20 years, global coal reserves have been revised downwards by 25%. The most recent case was India that halved its declared reserves. The USA is the “Saudi Arabia of coal” with 29% of global reserves. The former Soviet Union has 27%, China 14%, Australia 9%, India 7% and South Africa 4% of global reserves. That means that 90% of the fossil coal reserves exist in these six nations. We can also assert that the same six nations today produce 86% of the world’s coal.
If emissions from coal are to increase by 600 percent this cannot occur without the USA – that has the world’s largest coal finds – increasing its coal production by the same amount. In an article published in May 2009 in the International Journal of Coal Geology we have studied the historical trends and future possible production of coal in the USA. The production of high-grade anthracite is decreasing while the production of brown coal in Wyoming is increasing. Future coal production is completely dependent on new coal mining in the state of Montana. According to the constitution of the USA, federal authorities cannot force Montana to produce coal. In Montana they do not want to produce coal since the mining will destroy the environment and large areas of agricultural land. If the constitution is changed and mining of coal in Montana does occur it is possible for the USA to increase its coal production by 40% but not by 100%. An increase of 600% is pure fantasy.
Today, the world’s largest coal producer is China. Its reserves of coal are half the size of the USA’s and China has no possibility of increasing its coal production by 100%. A 600% increase there is also pure fantasy. Russia, with the world’s second largest coal reserves, can increase its production significantly but the untouched Russian coal reserves lie in central Siberia in an area without infrastructure. Russia is not dependent on this coal for its own energy needs but if mining did begin there some time after 2050 it could only ever be equivalent to a small fraction of today’s global production. Therefore, it is impossible for global coal production to increase by 100% and 600% is, once again, pure fantasy.
In the spring of 2008 I discussed the climate question with the USA’s then ambassador to Sweden Michael Wood who was interested in our research. My suggestion for a partial solution was that the presidents of the USA and Russia should sign a bilateral treaty in which they guarantee that half of the remaining reserves of coal in each nation would remain unused. The people in Montana would celebrate and Russia’s future would not be affected. The agreement would mean that 25% of possible future emissions of carbon dioxide from coal would disappear.
Our conclusion is that the assumptions of coal use that the IPCC recommended that climate researchers refer to in calculating their future horror scenarios are completely unrealistic. The question is why at all these gigantic volumes of carbon dioxide emission are to be found among the possible scenarios. The IPCC bears a great responsibility for the fact that thousands of climate researchers around the world have dedicated years of research to calculating temperature increases for scenarios that are completely unrealistic. The consequence is that very large research resources have been wasted to little benefit for us all.
That fossil fuel reserves are insufficient to support the IPCC’s horror scenarios may alleviate somewhat our concerns about future climate. On the other hand, we must be even more concerned about future resource shortages. The shortage of oil can, for example, place even greater pressure on the rainforests through increased production of biodiesel from palm oil. The fact that the fossil fuel energy required until 2100 for the “Business as Usual” scenarios does not exist means that the world’s growing population needs a global crisis package to create new energy solutions. We must now – and with immediate effect – change the global energy system.
Kjell Aleklett
Professor of Physics, Global Energy Systems at Uppsala University
DN (Dagens Nyheter – Sveriges ledande tidning) publicerar idag på DN-debatt mitt inlägg om de utsläppsscenarier som IPCC rekommenderar att klimatforskare skall använda då man beräknar framtida temperaturökningar. I facklitteratur där klimatförändringar diskuteras är utsläppsscenarierna grupperade i familjerna A1, A2, B1, och B2 och mitt inlägg gäller familjen A2. I olika sammanhang ser man ofta denna temperatur graf.
Första gången som vi publicerade en rapport som diskuterade IPCC:s utsläppsscenarier var 2003 då min student Anders Sivertsson presenterade sitt examensarbete (Study of World Oil Resources with a Comparison to IPCC Emissions Scenarios). Arbetet uppmärksammades av New Scientist och CNN. Ansvarig för IPCC-rapporten om utsläppsscenarierna viftade bort anmärkningen med kommentaren att det fanns så mycket kol. Någon ansåg att jag inte skulle debattera frågan då det inte gagnade klimatdebatten.
Hösten 2007 blev jag tillfrågad av OECD om jag kunde skriva en rapport om framtida oljeproduktion. Under arbetets gång utökades uppdraget till att också skriva en rapport om framtida utsläpp av koldioxid från fossila bränslen. I maj 2008, under World Transport Forum i Leipzig, hade jag möjlighet att personligen lämna över rapporten till RajendraPachuri, nuvarande ordförande för IPCC. Självfallet räknade jag med att man skulle ta kontakt med mig men det har varit helt tyst. Svenska representanter för IPCC har fått rapporten, politiska partier, individuella politiker och aktörer runt om i världen har fått rapporten och den finns tillgänglig för alla. Det verkar som om ingen har reagerat, Det känns som om man inte får kritisera IPCC.
EU:s nyutnämnde miljökommissionär Connie Hedegaard gjorde i lördags följande uttalande på DN Debatt:
”Det finns ögonblick i historien när världen kan välja att gå olika vägar. Klimatkonferensen COP15 i Köpenhamn är ett av dessa avgörande ögonblick: Vi kan välja att gå vägen mot grönt välstånd och en mer hållbar framtid. Eller så kan vi välja en väg mot dödläge och inte göra något alls åt klimatförändringarna, vilket lämnar en enorm räkning för våra barn och barnbarn att betala.”
Många tror att det rent fysiskt finns två vägar, en som går rakt fram “Business As Usual” och en alternativ väg som viker av mot ett förändrat energisystem där förnybara energier blir nödvändiga. Vår forskning visar att det inte finns två alternativ, vägen rakt fram “Business As Usual” kommer att rasa samman ganska snart och det betyder att vägen mot framtidens energilösningar måste byggas nu. Vår förhoppning är att man i Köpenhamn inser att det bara finns en väg. Jag tänker också på mina barnbarns framtid.
Aleklett's Energy Mix 
Rolle
December 7, 2009
Entusiasmens – vetenskapliga fälla
Entusiasm är mycket bra i vissa lägen, det får oss att med stor energi och fokusering arbeta mot ett visst mål eller för en viss sak.
Nakdelen är att denna fokusering även får oss att bortse från “mindre viktig information” som inte leder till målet.
Kanske lider en del av IPCC av för stor entusiasm.
Jonas Persson
December 7, 2009
Climate change is not 100% proven yet, thou quite likely. But that fossile fuel is running out is! A change in energy-production and energy-usage is necessary, that should be one of the foci of the discussion, instead of just climate change. But the media hype, is also something that has its correspondence in science. You can find it in the history of science.
“If you only have a hammer, everything looks like nails..”
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 7, 2009
Kjell,
I ditt OECD papper från 2007 skriver du på sid 13 att de fossila reserverna inte räcker för någon av scenariefamiljerna A1, A2, B1 eller B2, dvs inte ens till B1 som enligt IPCC motsvarar en uppvärmning av 1,8 C. I varje fall två papper i Energy Policy i år anger att det finns reserver till minst 2 C. Att 3,5 C inte är möjligt framgår av dagens artikel. Anser du att B1 familjen är möjlig?
Svenne
December 7, 2009
Hej Kjell!
Det finns en värre växthusgas än koldioxid nämligen metanhydrat. Metan är tydligen tjugo gånger värre än koldioxid som växthushusgas och metanhydrat finns det tydligen i mängder, tusenfallt gånger större än de fossila bränslena tillsammans.
Miriam Kastner bedriver sedan många år forskning på området och hon varnar för vad som kan ske. Har ni i Uppsala bedrivit någon forskning om metanhydrat? Oljebolagen är tydligen väldigt intresserade av dessa hydrat, trots riskerna vid utvinningen.
Colin Campbell nämner dem, men han ser dem inte som en resurs, eftersom de är måste förvaras frysta eller under tryck.
David
December 7, 2009
Kyle Alaklett would be more trustworhty if he wasn’t a shill for polluting industries. I think I’ll trust the climatologists and I’ll believe these Peak Oil predictions once they come true and not a moment earlier.
The oil industry loves oil addiction, that much is certain. The oil industry doesn’t much mind polluting the planet, either. It is all about money and that is all.
Oil industry shills aren’t climatologists. Perhaps if you people had not made so many failed predictions about Peak Oil your opinions regarding climatology would be more trustworthy.
The Peak Oil movement is owned by the American Petroleum Insitute and filled with oil industry insiders who have their careers and their wealth invested in the oil industry. Needless to say, you people aren’t exactly objective when speaking about the climate or pollution or even Peak Oil.
2student
December 7, 2009
good post..
thanks
ccpo
December 8, 2009
Kjell is myopic with regard to climate change. He’s really no different than climate deniers, his reasons are just different. This is ideological cherry picking as surely as the recent e-mail hack hoopla was.
Kjell doesn’t understand the climate sensitivity. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091206162955.htm
If going from 285 or so to 387 or so has created the massive changes we already see, what the hell does he think going to 450 or 550 is going to do?
He doesn’t include all sources of fossil fuels. Not only us there coal and oil, but natural gas, clathrates and tar sands. These sources easily eclipse the total we have already burned through.
He doesn’t address permafrost and clathrates. (In an e-mail with a climate scientists studying these, he stated these deposits were within 1-3 degrees of unstable temperatures overall. My take? Put your head between your legs and… you know the rest. The Arctic is warming a hell of a lot faster than the rest of the globe.)
He doesn’t include any concern for tipping points. We know they happen. Climate history is chock full of them. And they can happen in months, years or decades, not just centuries or millennia. We don’t know where the tipping points are. They could be kicked off already, as the ice indicates, or still be 50ppm, 100ppm, 200ppm of 1000ppm away. The problem is, WE DON’T KNOW. Thus, we need to act to prevent them from happening. This is simple risk assessment.
He doesn’t, as deduced from his perspective, understand the import of a worst case scenario. If we have enough FFs to get to 6+C higher, we are toast. Period. If climate sensitivity is nearer 6C than 3C, as I and others (see link above) expect, we are already in for some serious trouble. How the hell can he essentially advocate the burning of the rest of the FFs (or at least tell people the knife blade they are holding onto really isn’t sharp, so don’t worry if it slips!)?
As I said, on this he is blinded by his dedication to PO activism. A myopically dangerous position.
Fiat lux
December 8, 2009
ccpo: what you do not understand is that the cut on carbon emissions will come “naturally” through rising costs and sinking oil productions. The economic leverage is already built in the oil industry.
Reducing CO2-emissions is all fine and well, but oil dependence is a thousand times more important, and THAT is what Copenhagen should have been about.
About tipping points there is lot of controversy (Medieval warming period!) and much could be said. All Aleklett said was that ONE (the most extreme) prediction of CO2-emission was highly unlikely (notgonnahappen of science) and should not be presented as a reasonable projection of the future climate unto policy makers. If not the intent was to delude.
maze
December 8, 2009
We are already seeing wars on oil. Discoveries going down, reserves going down, consumption going up. The price was up to 150/bbl last year, and now we have a almost worldwide financial crisis (at least in the EU&USA).
I´d love to see a source for this claim by David:
“The Peak Oil movement is owned by the American Petroleum Insitute”
There are tens (maybe hundreds) of web sites out there devoted to discussing and spreading awareness of this issue. University litterature in natural sciences has plenty of information about the risk with peak oil (and resource depletion in general).
ccpo
December 8, 2009
Fiat lux, it is you who is mistaken. Too many PO activists don’t understand climate, and vice-versa. All of you who think one is more important than the other are walking a tightrope one-legged.
First, FFs will not deplete before massive damage is done. The math is simple: we *will* continue to use FFs if we don’t change over to renewables. There is more recoverable carbon locked in oil, gas, coal and tar sands than we have already used. Even if declines in emissions drop to zero by 2050, we will have put another enough into the atmosphere to reach 447ppm.
Second, we are already seeing the climatic effects at 350 – 387 that we didn’t expect to see for a number of decades (Arctic melt, e.g.), if not hundreds of years (Antarctic melt, e.g.)
Thus, we have already overshot a healthy CO2 level. That means ANY additional emissions are pushing us further toward climate chaos.
With me so far?
Third, the clathrates and permafrost are already starting to add to emissions. In the permafrost alone there is 2x the carbon currently in the atmosphere. Those clathrates, btw, are from 1 – 3 degrees from instability (this written to me directly in an e-mail from a climate scientist.) Yet, the Arctic is warming far faster than any other area of he globe. 2C globally equates to many times that in the Arctic.
Obviously, we have a problem with the methane emissions, right? Do the math. Just 10% of the permafrost carbon equals another 100 ppm. That puts us at 550.
So, we have very likely already committed ourselves to 550ppm, and extreme danger, even if we get to zero emissions by 2050.
Do you still think we can just burn the rest of the oil, gas, coal and tar sands? I promise you now, you are wrong. Read what I have written. Read it again.
Fourth, in order to advocate not paying much attention to climate, you have to make one of two more basic mistakes, or both: A. You have to believe we owe nothing to future generations because recent studies (2009) have indicated warming will continue for at least 1,000 years from now, even if we stop emissions this century. B. Or you have to believe Rapid Climate Change is a fairy tale.
The first, A, means you don’t see any inter-generational responsibility. The second means you don’t know enough about climate. Google Spencer Weart rapid climate change.
Basically, we now know changes in conditions can happen in months, years, a decade, and often do. That is, if we hit an important tipping point, within three months major shifts in climate can occur. And you won’t know it till it happens. It will be nearly impossible to predict moving past a tipping point. Thus, CC is just as urgent as PO.
In one respect it is the more urgent of the two: PO might shake civilization to its knees, but CC can completely destroy it, and will if we get to 4C – 6C. At 6C, its an utterly different planet and the human bottleneck will be very narrow indeed. PO could allow billions to carry on and keep a lot of tech going. 6C? Not much chance of either.
Why PO and AGW activists think they are on opposite sides freaks me out. There is nothing about either topic that makes them mutually exclusive. In fact, it is the opposite. Many of the solutions for one work for the other. But not all. Some are good for one but counter-productive for the other. The situation is so tight that we can’t afford even small mistakes. We must choose those solutions that work for both. We *must.*
David
December 8, 2009
Hello Maze,
The number of websites devoted to the subject of Peak Oil does not serve to disprove that the Peak Oil movement is owned by the American Petroleum Institute. It is easy for an organization to set up websites and blogs supposedly created by “objective outsiders” and academics.
I’ve spent a lot of time investigating these blogs and websites and can assure you that the vast majority are created by oil industry insiders, careerists, investors and academics who are very closely associated with the oil industry.
The prime example of such as blog is “The Oil Drum”. Several years ago the staff of “The Oil Drum” celebrated their invitation to join a conference call for the American Petroleum Institute as if they had attained a great goal.
These calls continue and The Oil Drum’s staff continues to parrot American Petroleum Institute talking points including climate change denialism, anti-regulation, anti-taxation, and pro-oil production at all costs (see the oil sands).
The Peak Oil movement has a long history of climate change denialism. This is easy enough for anyone to verify as it requires only simple searches on google.
The climate change denialism has occurred on The Oil Drum and it has also occurred on Peak Oil websites in Europe. Some of Peak Oil’s “greatest lights” (in quotations because the vast majority of these people are no-name nobodies everywhere except within the movement) have activity fought against climate change, environmentalism and regulation.
These activities have occurred so often and so long that it is quite easy to determine that Peak Oil is an astroturf movement by the American Petroleum Insitute and like-minded organizations meant to promote and protect oil industry interests.
As to the validity of Peak Oil claims and predictions: When I first heard of Peak Oil I was hopeful that it would occur within the time frame predicted by the Peak Oil movement. Those predictions have failed over and over again.
The Peak Oil movement wants those predictions to keep on failing, too, since they are advocating even more radically destruction oil production techniques as humankind becomes more desperate to maintain an unsustainable addiction to fossil energy.
Until the Peak Oil predictions come true I am not going to trust any Peak Oil prediction. The Peak Oil movement has lied about Peak Oil so all of their other opinions are suspect.
I’m very much in favor of Peak Oil. I would have been very happy had Peak Oil occurred in 2005 as was so confidently proclaimed several years ago.
Where is Peak Oil? Whatever happened to Peak Oil?
maze
December 8, 2009
David,Most of those who believe oil is depleting do not deny climate change. Most/many of them don´t agree that climate change is a bigger problem than oil depletion, though.
ccpo
December 8, 2009
David,
Argumentation by assertion. Would you care to name which staff members at The Oil Drum are from the petroleum industry and what their stances are?
Here’s what I know: Two of the most active are Leanan, who manages the DrumBeats, and Nate Hagens. Neither are climate denialists. In fact, the opposite. The closest you come to for the primary site is GailtheActuary, who is a CPA or some such. She occasionally posts something semi-supportive of the oil industry, but is a short-term peakist. The two unapologetic anti-AGW staff members I know of are both from Europe, interestingly enough.
I read The Oil Drum virtually every day. Of those who post there – and if you actually know TOD well, you know the comments are more what TOD is than the key posts are – the vast majority appear to be AGW aware, not denialists.
As for TOD cheerleading the FF industry, you’re just way off base. I don’t see the evidence of it.
Let’s do a little logical string, shall we?
If PO is occurring, it is a chance to run up prices and gouge the public on oil prices.
If PO is occurring and TOD is a mouthpiece for Big Oil, they should be cheerleading for the rise in prices.
If PO is occurring and TOD is a mouthpiece for Big Oil, they should be cheering for high prices, denying climate change and cheering for the demise of alternative energy.
Why isn’t this the case? At the very least, Nate, Leanan, Jason Bradford and Jerome a Paris are all pretty firmly in the AGW/Alternative Energy camp. There are probably more, but I am trying to be careful not to overstate anyone’s position.
The upshot is, you’re way off.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 8, 2009
Ccpo
I have followed this blog from the start and sometimes expressed a different opinion than Kjell Aleklätt. However, I have tried to be as objective as I can and also give respect to people with different opinions. This is also the case for most of the comments in the blog which I appreciate. I would be glad if also you could show some respect for people even if you objectively critisize their opinions. A couple of comments.
– Kjell Alelätt has since the start of the blog advocated that we as soon as possible shall be more energy efficient and turn to sustainable energy sources.
– The Global Energy System opinion of peak oil is supported by the doctoral thesis by F Robelius. It has a span for peak oil from 2008-2018. None of us knows for sure if this will be right or wrong.
– In Aleklätts OECD paper from 2007 regarding carbon reserves available for the IPCC scenarioes he includes oil, gas and coal from all sources.
ccpo
December 8, 2009
Lars-Eric,
I’ve just re-read my original post. There was nothing disrespectful in my post.
myopic
2 : a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something
That is descriptive, not insulting, and it follows from his own arguments that PO alone will cure the issue of climate change. He doesn’t understand climate change. I’m sorry if it offends you for me to point it out, but you not liking it doesn’t make it less true.
In Aleklätts OECD paper from 2007 regarding carbon reserves available for the IPCC scenarioes he includes oil, gas and coal from all sources.
Including clathrates? And where is his work on Climate Sensitivity? I posted a link above. Did you read it? Your comments don’t address this issue, yet it is the basis for my post in the first place.
I’m as thrilled as anyone that Kyell addresses the issue of PO, but, again, doing so while ignoring AGW is a fool’s errand. He says above the question for Copenhagen is, “How should we use coal?”
Wow. I’m not going to repeat my previous posts. My comments stand: ignoring AGW and setting up a GW vs. PO dichotomy is shortsighted. It betrays a lack of insight, as stated.
Cheers
PS. What is wrong with the world that an honest opinion is considered rude only because it is forthright?
Mikael Höök
December 8, 2009
CCPO:
Clathrates are included in the production projections and will not be able to fullfil the energy production scenarios depicted by the IPCC. Read the material before you start to throw around accusations. In fact, clathrates are very geologically uncertain and only proved by drilling in few cases. Only 3 sites have found clathrate layers thicker than 10 cm so they are indeed very unsuitable for any form of commercial energy production in forseeable future.
Climate sensitivity is a non-issue for our research since we are dealing with future energy production and not with climate change. What we are critizing is the production assumptions and their accompanying emissions. There is unrealistic that the production profiles in the IPCC emission scenarios will occur and the present set of scenarios should be regarded as exaggerated. Resource availability, production increases and numerous other assumptions regarding socioeconomic development in the future is flawed. Just like their predecessor reports from 1990 and 1992, the present set of scenarios should be withdrawn and replaced with realistic scenarios.
Our message is simple. Energy production account for the vast majority of all emissions, and peaking (which is backed up by all forms of hard data) will greatly affect future emissions. IPCC do not even consider a single scenario that uses less fossil energy by 2100 than we presently use. Their entire scenario set is built on assumptions of ever-increasing utilization of fossil energy which we see as implausible.
From the golden rule of modelling it naturally follows that bad input gives bad output in any model. None of the AGW climate models are much better than the assumed future emission scenarios that they are being fed with.
ccpo
December 8, 2009
Mikael,
How in the world do you justify a non-systems approach to a systems problem? As I said, shortsighted. The myopia that accompanies focusing too closely on what you know well and dismissing what you don’t is a fatal flaw.
I posit that any discussion of energy without considering climate, and vice-versa, is essentially suicidal on a global scale.
To address your points more directly, when I talked about methane I was very clear that I was not talking about burning them as an energy source. I said,
“Third, the clathrates and permafrost are already starting to add to emissions. In the permafrost alone there is 2x the carbon currently in the atmosphere. Those clathrates, btw, are from 1 – 3 degrees from instability (this written to me directly in an e-mail from a climate scientist.) Yet, the Arctic is warming far faster than any other area of he globe. 2C globally equates to many times that in the Arctic.
Obviously, we have a problem with the methane emissions, right? Do the math. Just 10% of the permafrost carbon equals another 100 ppm. That puts us at 550.”
You said,
“Climate sensitivity is a non-issue for our research since we are dealing with future energy production and not with climate change.”
To which I must respond that the entire subject of Kjell’s post was the effect on climate, or supposed lack thereof. Why do you attempt to deny the context? Strange…
I have made a very strong case for not assuming PO will solve AGW, which was the central claim Kjell made. I invite you to actually show where any of my logic or numbers are incorrect or flawed.
Not to put too fine a point on things, if you honestly think PO can be discussed outside the context of AGW, you don’t understand AGW well enough. Again, we have new evidence supporting a higher climate sensitivity than 3C. Please read that.
Further, if you think there are not enough FFs to push us past dangerous levels, you don’t understand climate well enough. We are already getting too warm. Every ppm of CO2/CO2e added from now forward pushes us closer to disaster.
Simple risk assessment says act to mitigate this.
Cheers
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 9, 2009
ccpo
In the article in DN, which Kjell Aleklätt discusses in his post, he states as he has done several times before, “I do not question that these releases (geenhouse gases) changes our climate.” He has neither, to my knowledge, questioned the IPPC´s global warming calculations with one exception namely prerequisites for the carbon dioxide emission scenarios.
These scenarios are described in the IPCC special report on emission scenarios, http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/ .The data are predicted from economic models and divided into four families A1, A2, B1 and B2. Apart from the publications from Global Energy Systems in Uppsala, I have only seen two scientific papers both in Energy Policy that discusses reserve based models. In Kjell Aleklätt´s article he claims that the prerequisites regarding oil, gas and coal that IPCC assumes for the A2 family, that leads to 3.5 C warming, are not realistic from a reserve point of view. The two papers in Energy Policy shows that the fossile fuel reserves are sufficient for 2 C warming. I do not have the time to follow the literature, but I would appreciate if you or someone else would give a reference to a scientific paper showing that reserves are sufficient for the A2 family.
ccpo
December 9, 2009
Lars-Eric,
We are going in circles. I understand that some people think numbers are everything, but they are not. Common sense, risk assessment and insight are equally as vital. You are looking at the wrong numbers.
The IPCC IV report was out of date the moment it was published. Its scenarios were based on a range of inputs, true, but some major feedbacks were not included and climate forcing beyond 4.5 was not seriously considered.
The number you are missing is climate sensitivity. The base sensitivity of the IPCC IV report was 3C per doubling of CO2. However, the link I provided up thread states that sensitivity is 30 – 50% higher. That is the same as saying reserves are 30 – 50% higher.
Let’s say reserves are, oh, 2 trillion for all FFs, excluding sea bed and permafrost clathrates. Let’s say recoverable FFs are, say, 1.3T. If all are burned, that more than equals what we have already burned, which takes us to more than 450 ppm.
Now let’s add climate sensitivity of 50% more. That means we can already expect warming equal to 438 (102 x .5 + 285). If we burn the FFs we have left we get another 100+ppm, which, with the higher sensitivity equals 150ppm. The total is 588ppm.
From here we simply apply logic. At 387ppm we are already seeing virtually all the effects we were not expecting for, in some cases, hundreds of years:
– Arctic ice loss of 80+%
– Antarctic mass loss
– Glacial mass loss
– habitats/organisms moving to higher elevations and/or latitudes
– melting seabed clathrates
– melting permafrost clathrates
– organisms and habitats out of sync
– accelerating extinctions
– increasing intensity of weather systems
– acclerating desertification
– ocean acidification
– Etc., etc.
There’s more bad news. The warming from the present 387 is not fully realized. There is some fraction of 1C still in the pipeline just from the carbon currently in the atmosphere. With the higher sensitivity this number is likely between .5C and 1C higher than present. Again, that’s with no more emissions after today.
Basically, you are saying @600ppm is nothing to worry about. Risk assessment says otherwise.
It gets even worse. As I have already mentioned, clathrates are already melting. Thermokarst lakes have tripled in size and/or number in less about a decade. The methane concentration concentration in the atmosphere has been rising since 2007 after a ten year plateau. Missions last year announced the methane chimneys in the sea and on land.
If we are already seeing everything we feared from climate change, what is the equivalent of another 200ppm going to do? The effect of the Arctic ice melt and loss of albedo there and the rest of the Arctic should not be underestimated. We might have **already** passed an important tipping point in the Arctic. If so, we are already likely too late less a massive effort to reduce emissions to a level that the carbon sinks can start lowering the atmospheric concentration.
The combination of Arctic ice melt and methane emissions indicate the Arctic Amplification feedback may already be beyond a tipping point.
Do a risk assessment exercise.
Basically, take your reserve numbers and add 30 – 50% for increased climate sensitivity and see where that leaves you.
Cheers
Mikael Höök
December 9, 2009
CCPO:
You are not seeing the correct picture. AGW is about mankinds emission of GHG gases, which is primarily and dominantly a question of fossil energy utilization. I, as well as many other here, would probably be very interested in your explaination of why climate affects Navier-Stokes equations, reservoir physics and other physical parameters that affect our production/exploitation of fossil fuels. A systems approach in the form you suggest is deeply flawed and does not focus on the fundamental physics, nor the underlying parameter that governs future emissions. Petroleum geology, reservoir physics, coal geology and mining is essentially not affected by anthropogenic climate change so there is no logic in developing energy models that are AGW-dependent. Or do you honestly believe that the flow of fluids in porous media at great depths are affected by mankinds potential impact on surface climate?
If clathrates are not used as an energy source, they have no place in our global energy models. IPCC and others are working with feedback processes and climate models so you must ask them why they are not including clathrates, since they are doing climate. We are critizing the input to the climate models, not the climate models and you certainly need to understand this distinction. I also suggest that you brush up on some details surrounding facts and myths regarding methane clathrates and recommend this consice review paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2004.04.003
Once again: AGW is dependent on future emissions, which is dependent on the assumptions regarding future production of fossil fuels and their availability for exploitation. We are criticizing the emission scenarios, which is used as input in the climate models, and not the climate models themself. Understand this since it is a major difference.
We are skeptical against the IPCC assumptions that future coal production only is a question of economics and social acceptability. In contrast to the IPCC, we do not believe in 31 Mb/d of CTL by 2100 and nor do we believe in CTL-production costs of less than 15 dollar/barrel. We are also skeptical against oil price assumptions, the belief that China will increase its coal production 8-fold over the next 90 years and numerous other details. If you are supporting their climate projections you are also supporting the fundamental assumptions that they were derived from. the IPCC cornucopian view of fossil fuels implies that there is no problem at all with energy availability in the future and this is deeply flawed.
ccpo
December 9, 2009
Oh, for goodness sakes. When did I say you should use climate science to assess reserves? Please, read what I write, no what you wish I had written.
My message to you all is simple: I am telling you the *conclusions* you are reaching *about* the effects of burning fossil fuels are wrong, *not* that your assessments of reserves are wrong.
I repeat, Kjell claims above we need not worry about climate change because the reserves do not exist to reach the IPCCIV’s most dire scenarios.
I further repeat, since we are already at levels that don’t allow us to add more to the atmosphere, that conclusion is wrong on the face of it.
As for methane clathrates, regardless of what the analysis you linked to shows, I will listen to the scientists who are measuring their rate of melt and emissions. After all, the IPCC has been far behind the curve on what they thought the mean changes would be. Me? I’ve been correct in predicting greater melt, greater sea level rise, greater methane emissions.
Why? I look at the global system, not just one part of the equation.
This is not rocket science, gentlemen. Remove your blinders. Do what you wish in measuring reserves and flow rates. I have spent a great deal of time reading on those things and understand them fairly well for a layman. I understand their meaning and import. It has been satisfying to see PO discussions enter the mainstream.
But you are collectively showing a great deal of naivete in assessing the impacts of FFs on future climate.
Cheers
Buck
December 9, 2009
ccpo: To an outside observer, you come out as the arrogant one not willing to listen to other’s arguments.
This does not strenghten your argument.
Just sayin’.
Anders Axén
December 9, 2009
Thank you so much CCPO for your commenting. Generally longer discussions have been lacking on this blog for too long.
Personally – and being a layman – I don’t understand how one could accept and discuss Peak Oil and stress that we use a risk management perspective when looking at the future of fossil resources, but then somehow lose the risk perspective when venturing into other “areas” or “subjects” such as climate change.
If one wants to try and forecast the future and one is sincerely concerned about future generations and their lives on earth then my conclusion is that one should always use LONG and BROAD perspectiveS when it comes to the analysis of what effects our actions on earth will have. And of course always use a RISK perspective.
Personally I’m not too fond of them physicists that get too stuck in their data and formulas in their desire to narrow down and simplify the reality and the future, but then lose a whole bunch of essential variables, the broad-broad-broader perspective and the oh so very important if-not’s and maybe’s.
ccpo
December 9, 2009
Buck,
Perception is everything, I guess. Personally, I’ve always found, “You’re not listening! You’re not accepting my arguments, so *you* are arrogant” and unconvincing rhetorical device.
Don’t mistake frustration with having words put in my mouth as arrogance. At least twice in this conversation the responses have basically said I was saying something I wasn’t saying.
Just to be crystal clear, let me say this even more simply:
1. Let’s accept N reserves. For argument’s sake, 3 trillion BOE and Climate Sensitivity (CS) of 3C. (There are supposedly about 1T in oil alone, right? The actual number isn’t important for this exercise.)
2. Let’s accept 0.6N as the revised estimate, thus 1.8T BOE in reserves.
3. Let’s take the higher sensitivity, since this is a risk assessment, of 0.5, thus 3C x 0.5 = 4.5.
4. 1.8T x 0.5 = 0.9T; 0.9T + 1.8T = 2.7T
5. Thus, the expected climatic impact should be calculated as being nearly what it was at the higher reserve levels. That is, the reduced reserves from the IPCC models don’t necessarily give us the room to say the worst case scenarios are impossible.
Put your own numbers into this equation and see where we end up. I’d be interested to see them.
However, before you do that, add in X tons of methane emissions because, despite some scientists fantasy that these deposits cannot possibly melt, they already are. That’s a physical reality which you all ignore at your peril. Let me reinforce this by saying climate scientists told us just a few years ago (2007) that the Antarctic wouldn’t be showing mass loss for at least a hundred years, if not hundreds or even thousands.
They were wrong.
Remember, this is an exercise in risk assessment. You cannot ignore the greatest possible risk. You must include it or your risk assessment is not valid.
Cheers
ccpo
December 9, 2009
Anders,
Thanks, and agreed. As a layman, I try not to argue the science much. I do allow myself the necessary step of accepting scientists’ diverging views based on how each squares with observable reality, however, and when observable reality diverges from the consensus to question that consensus.
In the case of PO, I have found the arguments by people at The Oil Drum, ASPO, etc., more convincing than those of the IEA, EIA, Exxon, etc. This was because I have found the mainstream view at odds with observable reality.
The same is true of climate. While I consider IPCC IV to be a landmark document, the fact is the science behind it is all pre-2005. The four years since have shown huge strides in our understanding of the climate. The document is out of date, pure and simple – though no fault is found; it’s just a combination of how science is done and the nature of putting together such a large document.
Still, we must revise our assessments on the fly, so to speak. The methane observed bubbling up, the expansion of thermokarst lakes, the finding that Arctic warming affects the land 1,000 kilometers (or is it miles?) inland from the Arctic Ocean, and the resumption of the upward spike in atmospheric methane after a decade of plateau are dire warnings to us.
Cheers
Mikael Höök
December 9, 2009
CCPO:
You just wrote that: “justify a non-systems approach to a system problem” and that “any discussion of energy without considering climate, and vice-versa, is essential suicidal on a global scale”. As I read those statements they imply that you believe that climate influence reserves and production of fossil fuels, whereas I do not see how geology or recoverability will be influenced by climate in any practical case. Ergo, our availability of fossil fuel have little do do with climate. However, their utilization is another thing but that will be ultimately limited by availability/recoverability, which is a non-climate issue and where we conduct our research.
We are not drawing any conclusions on the effect of burning fossil fuels or their climate impact. Rather we show that the IPCC emission scenarios are unreasonable and unrealistic and from the fundamentals of modeling a bad input will give bad output. There is no way that the emissions can be as large as the IPCC expects. Not a single of their scenarios seems reasonable from a FF production point of view. Reality is actually far, far bleaker than the IPCC expectations on oil production and far more severe in oil price development. From our point of view, reality has been much less optimistic than the IPCC assumes. We can certainly not accept a 155-fold growth in world synfuel production over the next 90 years as realistic!
Climate sensitivity, gas hydrates non-energy role is outside our discussion and it makes no point for you to argue about it, since it does not deal with climate models rather the fundamental input for them. You can apply all the climate sensitivity you want to the climate models and refer to latest results, ut that has very little to do with the assumed emission scenarios they are being fed with since they are independent on climate sensitivity and clathrate effects.
ccpo
December 9, 2009
As I read those statements they imply that you believe that climate influence reserves and production of fossil fuels
I am forced, as a former EFL teacher, to now assume this is a language issue. You simply do not understand what you are reading. I have taken pains to make this clear, and cannot make it any clearer.
Then you say,
We are not drawing any conclusions on the effect of burning fossil fuels or their climate impact.
That is utterly and completely false. This is what Kjell wrote above:
In May 2007 the Debate column of Dagens Nyheter [Sweden’s most widely read broadsheet newspaper] published my article on climate titled, “Severe climate change unlikely before we run out of fossil fuel”.
The IPCC bears a great responsibility for the fact that thousands of climate researchers around the world have dedicated years of research to calculating temperature increases for scenarios that are completely unrealistic. The consequence is that very large research resources have been wasted to little benefit for us all.
That fossil fuel reserves are insufficient to support the IPCC’s horror scenarios may alleviate somewhat our concerns about future climate.
All of these quotes show a very definite position on Climate Change and Climate Change policy. They say we need not worry about Climate Change and are wasting time and resources on this issue.
Why do you claim the words Kjell wrote are not what he wrote? This is bizarre behavior.
And I will repeat, those of you who accept this premise are biased towards the issue of PO and are dismissive of Climate science. It is very obvious you are basing your opinions solely on your reserves myopia and have not studied climate issues at all. in fact, one of you above says so in stating they don’t have time to investigate the point.
Great. I have investigated it for you. Now listen: We are already past the point of safe emissions. Adding ANY more is dangerous, let alone the 3T+ Kjell advocates above.
PO and Climate Change issues are perfectly suited to address TOGETHER the changes we need to make. One camp demonizing the other is based in flawed analysis and inability to accept the other issue as equally important.
This massive failure in reasoning, logic, rhetoric and policy only helps to ensure no action will be taken.
Please review Climate Change. It is vital you understand this.
Cheers
Tommy W
December 10, 2009
ccpo:
Drawing conclusions from Kjell Aleklett, Michael Höök et.al.´s work, combined with IPCC work and my observsions over the years in Sweden:
Climate change is already a fact!
The climate change will get worse in the coming years!
We can not produce more oil than 2008 production (about), this will have severe impact on world economy and our daily life, but it will help slowing down the predicted climate change on large scale.
Peak Coal will further slow down the predicted climate change.
If IPCC would have used realistic forcasts they would have been able to do much better predictions. As you say we are already seeing climate change behaviors that were not yet predicted. That imply that the climate researchers could have done better prediction (if possible) with better CO2 predictions.
I have done my measures to cope with much higher energy prices, have you?
Jonas Persson
December 10, 2009
Tommy gives a nice summary.
The discussion has to some extent been on slightly different foci.
It is clear that the discussion has been too focussed on climate change and only climate change. The issue is (as usual) more complex. We have both a energy crisis and a climate crisis. These issues should be discussed at the same time. Something I think Kjell, is trying to say.
These are delicate issues and it is much too easy to take a stand for ones favorite subject. In an argument it is a good habit to try and see your opponents arguments in his eyes. If not for the sake of respect of your opponent.
ccpo
December 10, 2009
Tommy,
I understand that Kjell, et al., understand that Climate Change is happening. However, Kjell very clearly attempts to argue that there aren’t enough fossil fuels to burn to give us much to worry about. His concern is clearly with adjusting to PO more so than AGW.
I repeat, this is a huge error in judgment. This error comes from failing to understand how far we have already come with AGW (I prefer ACC: Anthropogenically-forced Climate Change). The combination of underestimating how bad the situation already is and underestimating the effects of the FFs in terms of climate sensitivity to future emissions causes Kjell, et al., to assume their lower reserve numbers mean PO will mitigate ACC.
It will not.
I have already demonstrated that 50% higher sensitivity means it doesn’t matter how much you reduce assumed reserves because sensitivity takes you back to almost the original level in terms of climatic impact.
All of you **must** come to understand this: Climate is already so far out of balance that **any** additional GHG emissions imperil civilization as we currently are organized.
Here is the key thing you all must consider in terms of risk assessment: PO can disrupt social order. Perhaps even push us into chaos. But, it cannot, by itself, threaten the very survival of civilization, or even humanity. ACC can.
I understand Kjell, et al., are dismissing the clathrates and permafrost. This is another huge mistake. Arctic Amplification guarantees temps in the Arctic will rise multiples higher than at the mid latitudes. A 3 degree global average rise will mean on the order of 12 or 15 degrees in the Arctic. The clathrates need only a degree or two to start degassing en masse. The permafrost is even more sensitive as it is not covered by the ocean.
As I said, just ten percent of the permafrost carbon equals another 100ppm.
You are all playing a very dangerous game. I believe it to be suicidal on generational time scales.
Your great error is actually not in your math, but in your very strange rejection of ACC activism. The majority of responses to mitigate PO also mitigate ACC. The areas of commonality should be your focus, not the areas of difference. The ultimate risk wrt ACC is death. For everyone.
That is too great a risk to take, don’t you think?
Jonas,
You said, “Something I think Kjell, is trying to say.” But this is not what he said. I quoted him earlier. He said we need to mitigate PO, not ACC. ACC cannot possibly reach the worst case scenarios, thus, don’t worry about it if it takes resources from mitigating PO.
I disagree strongly with this stance. A 6C warmer planet is essentially uninhabitable. You are likely talking about a bottleneck to rival the worst die-offs of the past. Humans would have a very small chance of survival. A PO world means no such thing. Billions can survive the worst PO has to offer.
Please stop wasting time on this false dichotomy. The best friends POers have are ACCers, and vice-versa.
Cheers
Stuart McCarthy
December 10, 2009
The problem that Kjell Aleklett has highlighted, i.e. the IPCC ignoring fossil fuel depletion, is not whether depletion will ‘solve’ climate change. The real issue at hand is that climate change policy responses based on IPCC SRES and AR4, particularly ‘market based’ responses such as cap and trade, will most likely fail.
See for example our submission (http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/Letter-Garnaut-Sep-2008.doc) to last year’s Garnaut Review, which informed the Australian Government’s climate change policy response. Professor Garnaut is one of Australia’s foremost economists. His review included an excellent examination of climate science, but dismissed the evidence of fossil fuel depletion out of hand without any investigation. The result is that the review’s economic modelling, cost-benefit analyses, mitigation options and policy recommendations are very seriously flawed, more likely to impede rather than support effective mitigation.
Now that Kjell Aleklett has drawn his research to the attention of the head of the IPCC, there is a strong moral and ethical obligation for the IPCC to bring this to the attention of policy-makers. A failure to do so would not only undermine the IPCC’s scientific credibility, but render this organisation directly responsible for the failed policies that result from the UNFCCC process, which will now almost certainly be overtaken by the socio-economic impacts of peak oil. The IPCC will only have itself to blame for the consequences of wilfully ignoring this research.
Tommy W
December 10, 2009
World energy is 85% fossil fuel based. 85%!!!!
If we understand now that fossil fuels are running out, we will take measures to phase fossil fuels out. Pure economics! If we don´t, then it is “only” the vague fear of global melt down, that many, many people still think is unlikely.
I see no contradiction at all between global warming and analysing peak oil. What so ever.
mats eriksson
December 10, 2009
Herr ccpo står kanske på Shells eller annan motsvarighets lönelista? Sätta käppar i det hjul som drivs av osjälviska personer som på ett ärligt sätt offrar sin egen tid för att göra det bättre för andra, gör honom inte tjänsten att mot kommentera.
Tommy W
December 10, 2009
Så sant, så sant Mats, men jag är förkyld idag och tänker väl inte tillräckligt klart. Dessutom var det ganska kul att försöka sig på lite korta sammanfattningar av min tolkning av läget.
ccpo
December 10, 2009
“I see no contradiction at all between global warming and analysing peak oil. What so ever.”
Nor do I. Why do some here? I encourage the coupling of the two issues, not their separation. I find it interesting that none of you have been able to refute my point about sensitivity. In fact, none of you have tried.
Again, even if reserves are as low as Kyell, et al., it is irrelevant if climate sensitivity is 50% higher than previously thought and/or we have already passed a tipping point with regard to Arctic Amplification.
Another possible area of confusion is referring solely to IPCC IV scenarios. Newer scenarios exist. IPCC IV scenarios are from 4+ years a go. We didn’t know about Antarctic ice mass loss nor methane releases from the Arctic then. I suggest you base your projections more on Hansen, et al., 2008, instead.
In fact, I know that Hansen is aware of lower reserve estimates for coal because he has referenced the work of Dave Rutledge, which mirrors what you reference and makes the same errors. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2697
So, if Hansen knows of Rutledge’s work, and still says the coal must stay in the ground, that should mean something to you all. That is, unless you dismiss or discount Hansen’s work in this regard.
Final Note:
I realize I am a guest here, but referring to me in a language I cannot read is not fair treatment, is it?
Cheers
Mikael Höök
December 10, 2009
CCPO:
I do not believe it is an language issue, rather your inexperience with how climate models differ from energy models and the methodological framework of the field.
IPCC as well as several other climate modellers relies on various energy models to estimate future GHG emissions since AGW is dependent on future emissions. The energy models are independent on climate (as explained earlier) and features a set of mostly economic assumptions about population growth, GDP growth and other things along with assumptions on resource availability and production trends. That forms the emission scenarios. Climate change and AGW is then derived by inserting those emission scenarios into the climate models. “Severe climate change” is what falls out from the climate models, which we have nothing to do with.
To be precise, it is not our conclusion that severe climate change wont occur when fossil fuel runs it. It is actually the IPCC conclusion based on the published models they used in their latest assessment report. Not even their least extreme emission scenario seems realistic. It is the IPCC that assumes that the extreme production trends and resource availabilities are needed for severe climate change, while we only conclude that those extreme emission scenarios are entirely unreasonable.
The climate models need much higher emissions and extreme fossil fuel utilization in order to yield severe climate change. This is a natural result of what the climatologist have published. So if we blame us for assessing severe climate change you are not understanding the difference between climate models and their dependence on underlying energy models. It is like comparing pears and apples.
You may say myopia or other fancy derogative words as much as you want but it does not change the fundamental reality of the modelling framework. Rather your ad hominem-argumentation just shows your lack of better arguments. Read up on your details and the topic, because the devil is hidden in the details.
However, it is possible that new and updated climate models may yield “severe climate change” at lower emission levels than those used in IPCCs latest assessment report, but that remains to be seen. Prior to being published and properly reviewed, such claims are just speculations. Talk about climate models are also irrelevant here because it is outside the field we are working with. Climate models and emission/energy scenarios are two widely diffent things, especially when it comes to AGW.
In addition. PO is about the lack of available fossil fuels, while dangerous AGW is caused by too much fossil fuels available for production. Naturally, both cases cannot be true at the same time. As said before, new and improved climate models may very well require less emissions from fossil fuels to reach potentially dangerous levels, but before those models are published and verified any such claims are just speculations and have little relevance.
ccpo
December 11, 2009
“IPCC as well as several other climate modellers relies on various energy models to estimate future GHG emissions since AGW is dependent on future emissions. The energy models are independent on climate (as explained earlier) and features a set of mostly economic assumptions about population growth, GDP growth and other things along with assumptions on resource availability and production trends. That forms the emission scenarios. Climate change and AGW is then derived by inserting those emission scenarios into the climate models.”
You have said this repeatedly. I have told you this is obvious, repeatedly.
“The climate models need much higher emissions and extreme fossil fuel utilization in order to yield severe climate change.”
The models and scenarios of 4 and more years ago. Not necessarily of today. Why do you keep ignoring this point?
“derogative words”
“Myopic” can only be considered derogatory if it implies intentionality. I have not said any has their heads buried in the sand. That *would* be derogatory.
“However, it is possible that new and updated climate models may yield “severe climate change” at lower emission levels than those used in IPCCs latest assessment report, but that remains to be seen.”
Finally, one of you has responded to the point I have made. The paper in question has been published, thus has been peer reviewed. By simple logic, if it is accepted, it will be used in the models, and by extension, must result in greater effects on the climate. By definition, sensitivity is the response of the climate to forcings.
“Talk about climate models are also irrelevant here because it is outside the field we are working with.”
False. You are advocating a change in *policy* having to do with the assumptions in the climate models. That comment is self-contradictory.
“PO is about the lack of available fossil fuels, while dangerous AGW is caused by too much fossil fuels available for production. Naturally, both cases cannot be true at the same time.”
False conclusion based on faulty premise. Hansen, et al., said in 2007 or 2008 that climate sensitivity was likely closer to 6C than 3C. This new study supports this conclusion. Yet, Kjell feels comfortable to suggest large changes in policy based on models using 3C. How is this possible?
You cannot simply say, “It’s not our fault. The climate models were wrong.” Of COURSE they are wrong. They are not climate science, they are just a tool for generating scenarios. The core of the climate science is done in the field and in analysis. The models will always essentially be wrong because they are always based on data that is typically years old before it is fully collated and analyzed then fed into the models.
Surely you understand this. Thus, you should understand that taking a hard stance on mitigating climate in favor of mitigating PO may well be wrong. If you are going to enter the policy discussion and attempt to influence it, you have a responsibility to acknowledge and work with new evidence as it comes up.
The evidence is clear:
The models are always behind observed changes.
Observed changes already show dangerous aspects of scenarios happening now.
Studies since 2005, the cut off of the IPCC papers, show the assumptions in IPCC IV were much too conservative compared to observed phenomena.
Studies in the last couple of years show climate sensitivity is higher than the IPCC assumed.
This effectively is the same as saying reserves are 30 – 50% higher than you and your colleagues are assuming.
This is inescapable logic. I have submitted it to you. You choose to belittle it by claiming I do not understand the models when I understand them very well.
On the other hand, you show a lack of understanding of climate science by insisting the models are all you are responsible for considering. The models are not equal to the science. OBservations are the base, not the models. If observations are showing you the models underestimate climate change, it is illogical for you to pretend this is not happening.
I am suggesting you consider the climate **science** rather than just the climate models, and that you give more weight to the up-to-date studies than the four plus year-old studies you are inherently accepting by relying solely on IPCC IV.
Finally, I reiterate: the climate during the ascent of modern man has never dealt with a world that had more than 300ppm of CO2. We are now at 387. We will hit 450, no matter what. By supporting even less attention to climate issues than they are already getting, you are engaging in a very dangerous game of chicken with Mother Nature.
Ah, truly final point: how and why are your assumptions about reserves any more accurate than anyone else’s? Is there no possibility you are incorrect? After all, you are only using models.
Cheers
Mikael Höök
December 14, 2009
Eventhough I have repeated it several times you do not seem to comprehend the difference between climate models and the underlying emission scenarios. Rather you insist on continuing to compare pears and apples. Are you even prepared to be specific and actually touch the main question? Namely the unreasonable expectation on fossil fuel that the IPCC relies on? Being abusive and avoiding discussions on our critique is not going to help you…
The 6C scenarios assume, for instance, that Chinas coal production will increase by a factor of 8 over the next 90 years. Other scenarios assume over 300 Mb/d of oil production. In their source material they write that 95% of future gas supplies will come from gas hydrates, despite the fact that gas hydrate layers thicker than 10 cm have only been found in three places by actual drilling.
If you believe that just being published and “simple logic” will make it appear in the emission scenarios you are dead wrong. Despite numerous articles and an massive amount of quantitative evidence, resource limitiations are ignored by the IPCC scenario developers. The emission scenarios are extremly biased toward an exaggerated future supply of fossil fuels. Comment that for a change and stop talking about irrelevant topic that are not connected to our research or the kind of criticism that Aleklett has voiced…
From our point of view, the emission scenarios are way, way more positive than actual reality. Since 1990, nor oil, gas or coal have increased as fast as the emission scenarios assume. Price development is also in dire disagreement with IPCC emission scenarios. So you avoiding the message and talking irrelevant things. Ar you going to comment the very details we are criticizing or will you just repeat more non-energy related stuff?
This is an blog about energy and we are doing research in energy so stick to the topic unless you would like to defend your earlier statements about climate affecting reservoirs and fossil fuel production…
Regarding our models we base them on quantitative data and mathematical geosciences. the IPCC relies on economical models and are for some strange reason far more optimistic about future oil supply than the worlds oil companies. Do you not find that odd?
Edwin Pell
December 11, 2009
“The fact that the fossil fuel energy required until 2100 for the “Business as Usual” scenarios does not exist means that the world’s growing population needs a global crisis package to create new energy solutions. We must now – and with immediate effect – change the global energy system.”
Yes this is the important message. We need to build the new energy system while we still have energy to do so quickly. This is the story of the ant and the grasshopper (Aesop circa 500BCE).
Stuart McCarthy
December 11, 2009
ccpo, you are missing the point.
IPCC emissions scenarios are *not* limited merely to climate science, but include assumptions of future economic growth (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=100), among other variables such as population growth and technological development. Notably, much of the literature supporting these assumptions has been discredited. However the assumption of perpetual economic growth, supported by *all* of the IPCC’s scenarios, remains a key determinant of the policy response, including economic modelling, cost-benefit analyses and technological responses. Given Aleklett’s (among many others) conclusions about the economic implications of peak oil, the IPCC’s contribution to the climate change policy response is very seriously flawed. The IPCC must address this immediately or bear responsibility for the failure of the UNFCCC to respond effectively to climate change.
Robin Datta
December 11, 2009
Some FACTS on Climate Change:
(Warning – the video runs for over one hour!)
Science is not a matter of consensus. When Einstein was informed that Germany had assembled 200 scientists who had reached a consensus that his theories were wrong, he noted that all it would take was one scientist to prove him wrong.
ccpo
December 11, 2009
IPCC emissions scenarios are *not* limited merely to climate science, but include assumptions of future economic growth
To whom do you think you are speaking? You, and others here, seem to be under the impression I am a BAUist or a PO denier or some such.
I wish you all would stop telling me what you think I don’t understand and simply take my comments as they are. I’m sorry my comments make you uncomfortable, but I can only share with you what I see.
If you think I am wrong that emissions are already too high and there is no room for more, then fine. But don’t attempt to justify not agreeing by attempting to dismiss what I am saying because I don’t “get it.”
I completely understand PO and I completely understand the climate issues. I have noted what I, and doubtless many others, see as a flaw in logic and key assumptions and have attempted to bring it to your attention.
I encourage you to consider that my expectations/predictions regarding PO and AGW have been correct these last three years and not dismiss my comments too hastily.
Edwin,
I agree about changing the energy system, but ignoring the climate issues, or, rather, guessing wrong about climate sensitivity, could lead to choices that do not prevent long term climate destruction. Far better to look at both issues and seek out only those solutions that work for both.
Failure to do that will leave both the Ant and the Grasshopper with nowhere to go and nothing to eat.
Cheers
ccpo
December 11, 2009
“Given Aleklett’s (among many others) conclusions about the economic implications of peak oil, the IPCC’s contribution to the climate change policy response is very seriously flawed.”
Dude, I guarantee you Kjell’s outlook is no more doomerish than mine. I have read, literally, 8 to 16 hours a day for three years on what I call The Perfect Storm: PO, AGW, and economic and social Collapse.
The difference between Kjell and I is that I am not intellectually or emotionally wedded to one element or the other, so my judgment is more balanced.
Three years ago I predicted everything about Climate Change would move faster than the IPCC IV report predicted, including melting at both poles. Now, given Antarctic melt wasn’t expected for at least 100 years, I’d say that’s apretty damned good call. (I didn’t predict the specific time frame, only that it would be well before 100 years were up.)
Two years ago, and again last year when the ’08 WEO came out, I predicted decline rates were higher than stated. According to the whistle-blowers, I was right again.
Finally, in Jan. ’08 I predicted the crash that came in the fall.
Welcome to my world.
Don’t misunderstand me to be claiming to be a genius or anything remotely like it. What I do have is a talent for discernment. I am very, very good at discerning what is germane and what is not in a set of possibilities/data/what have you. I obviously could be wrong wrt the interactions between FFs and climate, and I have no problem with being wrong, but my track record thus far says that is unlikely.
Whether any of you listen or not? That is entirely up to you. I hope you will at least look at the recent info and how it might affect your assumptions.
Cheers
Stuart McCarthy
December 11, 2009
ccpo, again you are missing the point.
You are focusing on the problems, not the policy response. The IPCC is a barrier to effective policy responses because it actively filters out information that discredits its conclusions, even though it does not have the expertise to do so.
Re your ‘predictions’ about oil production decline rates, I don’t know how you reached these conclusions. There is no clear observed data on a decline trend in world oil production yet.
ccpo
December 11, 2009
Stuart,
You are an argumentative fellow, eh? 1. Your comments on the IPCC are bull. Please don’t comment further on that topic as you are obviously a denialist, thus already showing yourself useless in this thread. Were there a single paper that was solid science and undermined the basics of climate science, you might have something to say, but there isn’t. Not one.
The others I will continue to interact with.
2. Please note that you also said “rates.” Not rate. Think this through.
Stuart McCarthy
December 11, 2009
ccpo, your resort to abuse does you no credit. When and where have I “denied” climate science. My comments on the IPCC are based on the *fact* that the IPCC has been presented with published, peer reviewed papers that discredit its *economic* assumptions (*not* climate science, as I explained above), but has ignored this literature. Who is the “denialist” here?
Maybe you could provide a link to where you published your “predictions” about oil production decline rate/rates (whichever it was) to clarify the matter?
Stuart McCarthy
December 11, 2009
ccpo, could you please satisfy my curiosity. What chain of logic did you use to reach the conclusion that someone who has publicly argued the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations to below 350ppm is “obviously a denialist”?
ccpo
December 11, 2009
Datta,
Absolutely not worth it. “Concensus” has nothing to do with it. Please, if all you can do is offer ridiculously meaningless epithets/talking points, why post?
Got some science? No, you don’t. I will not get involved in tit-for-tat propaganda. Throw down some science or do the ethical thing and remain silent.
Cheers
Robin Datta
December 11, 2009
One of the main arguments proffered by the AGW advocates is that that they have a large number of scientists on board. Implicit in that argument (and even explicitly stated) is that a consensus has been reached in this matter.
ccpo
December 13, 2009
A consensus has, but you are confusing consensus with science. A consensus doesn’t make the science correct, but correct science will lead to consensus.
Robin Datta
December 13, 2009
Indeed it will, someday.
ccpo
December 11, 2009
My comments on the IPCC are based on the *fact* that the IPCC has been presented with published, peer reviewed papers that discredit its *economic* assumptions (*not* climate science, as I explained above), but has ignored this literature.
Then you should have said that. The IPCC is about climate, not economy, so the context was not clear. However, you will have to do better than to 1. argue via assertion that they have ignored anything (they may have, I don’t know) and 2. assume the lower reserves you are implying are accurate.
Peer review is often misconstrued as meaning accurate. It does not. It only means the paper is internally consistent and has no major flaws. And *that* is assuming the reviewers were not A. biased and b. were competent.
All that said, you really need to understand what I have written about climate sensitivity. You want to ignore this, but cannot. If you do, you are spitting in the wind on this issue. Do the numbers. Take the IEA or EIA numbers, reduce them by the amount you claim they should be, then multiply that number by 0.5.
I asked for this some time ago. Let’s stop arguing pointlessly and look at the numbers. What do you consider to be the generally accepted numbers? what do you think the true numbers are? Multiply that by 50%. How close are we to the original number?
Guys, this is 4th grade math. Let’s do the math.
“hat chain of logic did you use to reach the conclusion that someone who has publicly argued the urgent need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations to below 350ppm is “obviously a denialist”?”
Your own words. Please don’t pretend I know your whole body of work. You were not careful with your statement. I interpreted your remarks in the context of what the IPCC does. I have no problem being incorrect and apologize for my remarks if they were inaccurate, but take responsibility for being unclear, eh? You do know there is a massive climate disinformation campaign going on, no?
I’m glad you are not a climate denialist.
Stuart McCarthy
December 11, 2009
ccpo, you need to read what people write before resorting to abuse.
This is what I wrote before you said “your comments on the IPCC are bull”, which makes my criticism *very clear* for those who can read:
“IPCC emissions scenarios are *not* limited merely to climate science, but include assumptions of future economic growth, among other variables such as population growth and technological development.”
Kjell Aleklett makes it clear that he and others have been drawing the IPCC’s attention to flaws in their emission scenarios since 2003, four years before AR4 was published, and that the IPCC has ignored the relevant research:
“The first time that we published a report discussing the OPCC’s emissions scenarios was in 2003 … Those responsible for the IPCC report on emission scenarios dismissed our work with the comment/excuse that too much coal exists. Some thought that I should not discuss this question since it does not benefit the climate debate.
“… In May 2008 … I had the opportunity to deliver my report in person to Pajendra Pachuri, the current chairperson of the IPCC. Of course, I expected that the IPCC would subsequently want to contact me but they have been completely silent.”
One of the major problems with the climate policy debate id the irrational habit of many activists to abuse critics of the IPCC as “denialists”, as if the IPCC is inviolate. Even James Hansen has been a strong critic of the IPCC. Does that make him a “denialist” too?
ccpo
December 13, 2009
Stuart,
Stop complaining of abuse. You have not been abused. For goodness’ sake… This is a silly thing to keep repeating.
The rest of your comments were covered in my previous. Your response makes little sense in that context.
And when in the name of god did I defend the IPCC? I have not. We are not discussing criticism of the IPCC.
Still waiting for one of you to address the central point of climate sensitivity. Since it invalidates your thesis, you’d think at least one of you would address it.
Cheers
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 13, 2009
Ccpo,
As you requested, I will make a comment on climate sensitivity.
If the world should reduce emissions in excess of the IEA 450 ppm scenario specified in WEO 2009, I believe the only way is to convince IPCC to accept the higher climate sensitivity and include that in their report 2014 or rather earlier. Whether you like IPCC or not, their reports are presently the “only” basis for the political leaders to make decisions.
On this subject it could in this Global Energy System blog be interesting to discuss how fast it is technical possible to change to low carbon energy production without a total stop in the world economy. To reach the 450 ppm scenario IEA proposes a carbon tax of 50 $ per metric ton of CO2 in the OECD+ countries and a smaller tax in the developing countries. Sweden has presently a CO2 tax of about 150 $ per ton and a CO2 release of 5,5 tons per person compared to a country with no tax like US, with a release of 20 tons per person. Thus,I believe that tax is an efficient way to change consumption but I do not know how fast we can go. The US Department of Energy report by Hirch claims it takes 15 years to plan for peak oil only.
ccpo
December 13, 2009
Lars-Eric,
Thanks for the reply. Still, you’ve side-stepped the issue of higher sensitivity. I didn’t ask you what sensitivity is politically accepted, I asked you all to do the computations I have outlined for your own edification. If you, as activists in a cause I support, will not look at this issue, why should I expect people with little reason to change to look at it?
Keep in mind a few things. If sensitivity is higher, we have even less time.
– There is every indication we are passing important tipping points now.
– Waiting several more years to even accept there is a higher sensitivity will definitely help to ensure emissions remain at levels that do not mitigate the problem enough to avoid it.
– Indeed, decades. But if the populace can be made to understand the reality of the situation, massive drops in emissions can happen almost immediately by nothing more than behavioral changes.
– Pain is coming regardless. This economic downturn will not end soon. We are in the middle of either a crash akin to the Dark Ages or a managed transition to something like a steady-state economy. Either will be painful, the latter less so. Thus, worrying about what is economically painful is somewhat irrelevant. Worrying about how to avoid complete collapse is, to my mind, the real goal.
But let us bring this back where it began. The governments of the world are going to change because we make them change. ASPO should be a leader in that regard, not a laggard. If understanding of the interplay between climate and energy is low among ASPO members, how can we hope for it to ever be high among people less informed?
Please, do the math.
Cheers
–
Stuart McCarthy
December 13, 2009
ccpo, these are your words: “The IPCC is about climate, not economy …”
This is wrong. The IPCC emission scenarios are based on *economic assumptions*, as I have highlighted above. They make unverifiable assumptions about *perpetual economic growth* as a start point. Next, they assume that the production of all fossil fuels will continue to grow until at least 2100. *After* they make these assumptions they examine climate sensitivity. The first assumption is not science (unless you believe in unverifiable supernatural forces like the “invisible hand of the market”), much less climate science. The second assumption has been completely discredited, by Aleklett and many others. How can the world economy continue to grow perpetually if there is insufficient energy production to support this growth?
And now you try to argue: “We are not discussing criticism of the IPCC.”
This is a ridiculous comment. The entire thread is about IPCC emission scenarios, with you abusing anybody who criticises them as “denialists”.
You can keep arguing about climate sensitivity until you are blue in the face, but the *fact* is that the IPCC emission scenarios are based on discredited assumptions even *before* they examine climate sensitivity. If the IPCC is to restore any credibility it should produce new scenarios based on plausible assumptions, not the junk science in the existing scenarios.
ccpo
December 13, 2009
Stuar, stop while you are ahead. I’ve dealt with this claptrap for years and do not put up with it. Don’t lie about what I have said. I called one person a denialist, and already apologized if that characterization is wrong. For you to carry on that conversation and expand it into a lie by implying I have called more than one person a denialist is unethical.
And you are utterly incorrect. That the IPCC includes future scenarios and must necessarily include economic assumptions does not convert the IPCC into an organization that studies economics. This is an argumentative and ridiculous assertion.
You appear to wish to derail the conversation int argument about arguing. This is also ridiculous.
And, no, we are not discussing the IPCC. They are not the problem I have addressed. We are addressing Kjell’s statements. Kjell’s statements about the effects of what he and others *believe* to be the correct reserve numbers are dead wrong. Simply observing the world around you makes that abundantly clear. We have already covered this. That you disagree is not important to me, for I am not asking you what is, but telling you and giving you the information you need to confirm or deny for yourself.
Stop making up excuses to not address the issue. Take what you believe to be the correct reserve numbers and multiply them by 0.5 and see how close that number is to the reserve numbers you believe to be wrong.
You’ve spent a lot of time typing up excuses not to. Try taking the thirty seconds it would take to just do the equation and post it here.
Unless you would rather engage in silly argumentation about argumentation.
Ted Johanson
December 13, 2009
I’m afraid that asking people to significantly change their life style will make them find any excuse possible not to believe in AGW. Do you believe the American people will be willing to give up or severely restrict the use of their cars easily?
To have any chance at all to convince people, we need to make sure that all data and models are as accurate as darn possible. We need honesty and openness above everything else.
To knowingly include erroneous or outdated data in models just because it gives a “better” result is dishonest, unscientific and will devastate credibility. This will only give more ammunition to the AGW deniers. Haven’t the recent “climate scandal” done enough damage?
If the scientific community agrees that there is physical and economic restrictions that severely limits future use of fossil fuels, this must be included in the IPCC scenarios.
If feed-back loops and climate sensitivity is underestimated, this is where the models needs to be mended. It doesn’t help to “fix” the models by including unrealistic data in other areas to make up for it.
Best regards.
By the way, I just want to thank Kjell for an excellent and very interesting blog that I have been following for some time, albeit silently.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 14, 2009
ccpo,
I am not knowledgeable enough to dispute yours or IPCC´s arguments about the worlds sensitivity to greenhouse gases and of course it is obvious that if the reserves of fossile fuels are higher than Aleklett predicts higher IPCC scenarios might be reached. Instead I tried to discuss how quick it is technically possible to get rid of the CO2 emissions.
There is an article in Scientific American in nov 2009 by M Jacobsson and M Delucchi who claims it is possible to replace all present power (energy per time) production on earth (12,5 TW) by renewables, thus sun, wind and water in 25-30 years. Example of what it takes is to build 490 000 tidal water turbines of 1 MW each, 5 350 geothermal power plants of 100 MW each, 100 hydro plants of 1000 MW each, 3 800 000 wind turbines of 5 MW, 1 700 000 000 sun panels of 30 kW, 40 000 sun panel plants of 300 MW etc. With energy from these plants also hydrogen is produced to supply fuel cells for the transport sector.
Global Energy System forecast is that the maximum possible oil production (all fluids) will be slightly above 30 Mbpd in thirty years (Robelius 2007) provided the peak occurred in 2008 as Aleklett presently believes. This should be compared to the present 85 Mbpd.
Oil is the most difficult energy source to replace and we need the oil to construct the new power plants. A replacement by coal would cause even higher CO2 emissions. My conclusion is therefore that if it takes 30 years to replace fossile fuels and either you are correct regarding the earth’s sensitive to CO2 or Aleklett is correct about future oil production, a crash program to replace oil and coal is required now.
I also have a feeling that the oil production is the limiting factor for turning to sustainable energy in an organized way. If I am right the size of the reserves of coal is less important.
Björn Johansson
December 14, 2009
IPCC håller ju som bäst nu på med sin femte klimatrapport (AR5) som ska vara klar under 2013.
Vet någon (Kjell?) om man i det arbetet nu tar “hänsyn” till peak-oil teorin?
Sedan den senaste rapporten (AR4) har en del hänt vad gäller modellutveckling, mätvärden/indata med mera. Så bättre resultat får man ju hoppas på den här gången. Det som också fortfarande verkar oklart är om alla de tusen forskare etc. som ska jobba med rapporten är samma som men den förra (AR4). Som betraktare skulle man helt klart vilja se ett ombyte av inblandade personer.
Så ,det skulle vara intressant att veta om man även tagit med peak-oil i resonemanaget i modellen eller om man struntar i dessa fakta?
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 14, 2009
Mikael,
Om du har möjlighet skulle det vara intressant om du läste och eventuellt kommenterade Uppsalainitiativets blog som också behandlar Kjell Alekletts DN artikel fast lite mer städat.
http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2009/11/finns-det-nog-med-fossila-branslen-for.html
ccpo
December 14, 2009
Lars-Eric,
Thank you for an excellent post that gets at the heart of the matter. I would still say we need to take a broad spectrum approach because, as you allude, coal is a big problem and not all solutions that work for PO work for AGW, but most seem to.
In the main, I agree with everything you have said. We need a crash program. Period. Whether we think this because of PO or AGW is irrelevant (except, again, in terms of choosing solutions) because both need to be addressed now. This is and has been my point all along, not that Kjell or Robilious (I read his paper at the time it was published and think his PO scenarios to be pretty accurate) are wrong about anything in their assumptions *except* for Kjell essentially dismissing the AGW component based on a lack of understanding of the current state of the climate.
As to the suggested time line, we can move faster than Jacobsson and Delucchi think, but it will require a change from thinking of highly efficient systems and maintaining current levels of consumption, to thinking in terms of massively distributed systems and greatly reduced consumption. Essentially, once we stop arguing about PO vs. AGW we *then* get to argue about old paradigm vs. new (sustainable, steady-state) paradigm!
Ah, the fun never ends!
Here are some rudimentary thoughts on how the US, e.g., might make such a transition:
http://aperfectstormcometh.blogspot.com/2008/03/build-out-grid-vs-household-towards.html
Have you read Without Hot Air? Very useful in thinking about the practical issues of transitioning.
Also, are you familiar with the Transition Town movement? A possible model for some…?
Cheers
ccpo
December 15, 2009
“Eventhough I have repeated it several times you do not seem to comprehend the difference between climate models and the underlying emission scenarios.”
You are either not listening or simply being argumentative. Why do you keep repeating this false point?
“Are you even prepared to be specific and actually touch the main question? Namely the unreasonable expectation on fossil fuel that the IPCC relies on? ”
As for the expectation, I have addressed it clearly. Why can you not comprehend what is written? I have said that regardless whether the higher or lower emissions are used is irrelevant for two reasons: we have already passed safe levels of CO2 *and* climate sensitivity is higher than you choose to believe.
It is not I that is ignoring what is written in this thread.
“Being abusive and avoiding discussions on our critique is not going to help you…”
Why lie about what I am doing? Still going on about being insulted? Even after I apologized? That is a small-minded person, indeed. I think you are not a very serious person at this point.
“Despite numerous articles and an massive amount of quantitative evidence, resource limitiations are ignored by the IPCC scenario developers.”
Where did I ever say Kjell, et al., are wrong about resources? I have not. I have said clearly that I am not arguing that point. Why do you keep pretending I have denied reserves are lower than the IPCC says? Keep pretending I have said reserve studies and GCMs are the same. Keep living in your myopic world where only PO is important. See where it gets you.
It is unfortunate that we share similar views on resources, yet cannot communicate due to the blinders you wear.
“The emission scenarios are extremly biased toward an exaggerated future supply of fossil fuels.”
So what? First, they are from 2005 or longer ago!!! Second, higher sensitivity erases any help we get from assumed lower reserves. READ, man!
“Comment that for a change and stop talking about irrelevant topic that are not connected to our research”
Myopia defined. Good lord…. how many time must I address the same points?
“Ar you going to comment the very details we are criticizing or will you just repeat more non-energy related stuff?”
EVERYTHING is energy-related. How can you be involved in such issues and be so blind to the systems analysis?
“This is an blog about energy and we are doing research in energy so stick to the topic unless you would like to defend your earlier statements about climate affecting reservoirs and fossil fuel production…”
I would laugh at this if it weren’t so sad. I suggest your friends urge you to work behind the scenes, for you are giving your research a very bad image here. Climate affects reservoirs? A joke! Please copy and paste where I have said such a thing.
“Do you not find that odd?”
You read things not written, believe things not stated, claim things not in existence. This I find odd.
Final time, but I think it a pointless exercise (numbers not actual, this concerning percentages, not totals):
Reserves: 4 Trillion
Adjusted reserves (Aleklett, Robilious, etc.): 2 Trillion
50% higher climate sensitivity = the same effect as if reserves were 50% higher, thus 2 Trillion x .5 = 3 Trillion.
OK?
Mikael Höök
December 15, 2009
Just read the IPCC AR4 synthesis report and how they determine average surface warming and other factors based on the emissions depicted in the emission scenarios. For example, look at Table 3.1 in the AR4 synthesis report. There is no need for you to make a fool of yourself by denying or not understanding what the IPCC actually writes or does…
Once again, stick to the topic. Our criticism is aimed at the unrealistic production assumptions used in the SRES to derive the projected surface warmings. Questions and speculations about safe limits, atmospheric interactions and other climate issues are something that you should discuss with climate modellers. The IPCC makes their own set of climate sensitivities and other parameters that are nicely published and explained in their reports. If they believe that it is necessary to change those assumptions they will do it in a future publication, which we have to wait on. Before it is publishes and assessed by the IPCC we do simply not know if they will change their assumptions or not. So stop speculating and read up on scientific procedures…
As I said before, being abusive will not win you any points. This is a scientific discussion where specific arguments should be justified by quantitative data and nothing else. Repeating flawed statements or talking about other topics is just bad behaviour. Regarding your earlier statements on how climate and energy are interrelated – see my post from 9 December – where I quote you on saying that climate affects energy and vice versa. So please explain how energy (which is mainly the extraction of fossil fuels) will be affected by climate…
Please read the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=0). There you can find numerous strange statements and assumptions that serves as input for the climate models. For instance, how coal is only assumed to be a question of socioeconomics. How vast methane hydrates are assumed to be put into large scale production (despite the fact that geological surveys havent barely been able to prove their existence in viable thicknesses by actual drilling). So read…
Finally, you are showing a dramatic misunderstanding about the difference between reserves and production. Fossil fuels will only contribute to emissions if they are produced. So the main question is about the size of the tap, not the size of the tank. Your example just shows that you miss this key point in PO…
ccpo
December 17, 2009
Thought some of you might find this proposal interesting.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6044
Re: Mikael
Sad. You think reality cares that you want to discuss one topic when you can solve absolutely nothing by doing so?
Mikael Höök
December 17, 2009
CCPO:
Since the kind of future you are afraid of is based on the dubious assumptions expressed within the SRES it is certainly important to discuss them.
The IPCC reaches their conclusions by assuming unrealistic fossil fuel production scenarios and if we ever are going to get reasonable climate model results we need realistic emission scenarios. Sound conclusions must be based on sound assumptions. or do you believe that an entirely unrealistic assumption will yield realistic climate forecasts when inserted into some automagic climate model? Simple logic and scientific honesty goes against such reasoning…
Reality is also very different compared to the gravely exaggerated fossil fuel production scenarios in SRES, which you sadly do not seem to be interested in discussing. So in essence, it is strange to see how you refuse to look closer at the very basis for the climate change predictions you fear so much…
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 17, 2009
Mikael,
Kjell Aleklett informerar på bloggen Ställ Om att Globala Energisystem har ett papper inlämnat till Natural Resources Research med titeln ”Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios”. Kjell skriver i debattartikeln i DN nyligen att IPCCs A2 scenarie (3,4 C uppvärmning) inte är möjligt med hänsyn till fossila reserver. Jag vore tacksam om du baserat på ert papper kan informera oss om de lägre scenarierna B1 (1,8 C) eller B2 (2,4 C) är möjliga?
ccpo
December 18, 2009
Mikael,
Why do you keep repeating the same arguments as if I have never responded?
Strange, indeed.
Cheers
Mikael Höök
December 18, 2009
CCPO:
I have to repeat them because you are avoiding the key question. The climate models are based on the emission scenarios. So if we insert bad input we will just obtain bad output from the climate models. Wouldnt you agree?
Otherwise I would very much like to hear your comprehensive explaination why an assumed future oil production of ~300 Mb/d by 2050 would result in a realistic climate change projection when inserted into the climate models…
Lars-Eric Bjerke:
Som vi ser det är inget av scenarierna möjliga. Inte ens de lägre. B1 antar exempelvis 170 Mb/d i oljeproduktion 2020 i ingående scenarier, B2 ligger på motsvarande 145 Mb/d år 2020. Så inte ens de lägre scenarierna har realism i sina energiprognoser.
Ted Johanson
December 19, 2009
Mikael Höök,
Finns det möjlighet att kol kan utnyttjas till den grad att några av scenarierna ändå blir möjliga?
Mvh
Mikael Höök
December 19, 2009
Givetvis finns det ju alltid några scenarier som förbrukar realistiska kolmängder, men då förbrukar man enormt överdrivna olje- och gasmängder istället.
Man blir lite fundersam kring hur de lagt upp sina scenarier egentligen eftersom den totala mängder fossil energi alltid är högre än dagens värde. Lite kol sammankopplas alltid med mycket olja och gas samt vice versa.
ccpo
December 20, 2009
Mikael,
Really, you are blinded by your loyalty to your data and one part of a very complex topic. PO is not the only issue. It is impossible to discuss the world rationally with someone who chooses to see only one aspect of the complex problems we face.
I have answered your question ad nauseum. Open your eyes and your mind: We don’t need to anything more than wind down use to ZERO emissions by 2050 to achieve horrific effects. We have more than enough Ffs to do that.
You are blinded by your PO activism.
Cheers
Mikael Höök
December 20, 2009
CCPO:
You actually scare me with your faith-based views on how reality works. The fact that you are entirely uninterested in discussing the very foundation of the climate projections is breath-taking. Any rational being would understand the importance of the fundamental assumptions in any model. If we assume over 300 Mb/d of future oil production we can pretty much obtain any kind of emissions we want, which are fed into the climate models. “Garbage in – garbage out” or do you disagree with the most fundamental rule in modelling?
And no, you have not answered by questions satisfactory. You are refering to your own speculative conclusions or appeal to single researchers instead of reading what the IPCC actually writes. Their climate models assume vast amounts of future production in order to be realistic and that is a written fact in their reports (which you really should read in more detail).
Regarding data I can only once again say that we do not deal with faith-based views on reality in Uppsala. We follow the fundamental framework of quantitative natural science. Or as Isaac Newton wrote: “For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction”
We certainly have numerous problems ahead in the future and PO is by far one of the most acute and serious.
You are very free to continue on your faith-based path, where your only arguments are ad-hominem or abusive avoidance of the key issue, but you wont be fooling anyone in the long run with such a weak basis…
ccpo
December 20, 2009
Mikael,
For goodness’ sake, stop lying! I said not to ignore projections, nor that Kjell, et al.’s projections are wrong, but that the reduction doesn’t matter and showed you mathematically why.
I also added the concern of clathrates degassing. You? You ignore this very real danger.
It is you has “faith-based” ideas. I tell you climate sensitivity is higher than *your* assumptions, which you base on climate info that is 5 years *or more* out of date. *That* is faith-based thinking.
Further, you assume that because you or someone you choose to believe has said reserves are much less than believed, that this is correct. You accept no possibility you may be wrong, apparently.
I have told you you must take a risk and systems analysis approach, yet you refuse.
I even asked you to do some very, very simple math, but you refuse. What are you scared of? Again, *that* is the hallmark of faith-based thinking.
Do the math, if you’re not too afraid to:
(N x .5) = Ne
N = your assumption of total reserves
.5 = additional climate sensitivity
Ne = Climatic effect equivalent of your assumed reserves
Then compare that to CR (IPCC Reserves assumptions) and see how close they are.
“And no, you have not answered by questions satisfactory. You are refering to your own speculative conclusions or appeal to single researchers instead of reading what the IPCC actually writes.”
No, what the IPCC WROTE. And I am not referring to single researchers. There are at least three lines of research supporting this higher sensitivity. But pretending new research doesn’t exist seems to support your agenda, even though your assumptions, which were wrong even before published (IPCC IV), are over five years old.
Let me repeat the very simple reality for you: your argument is moot because we are already seeing the changes that we were not supposed to see until atmospheric CO2 is 450, 550 or more. Do you not understand what that means? It is objective proof that climate sensitivity is higher than assumed 5 years ago.
I said this three years ago because the real world observations were already well ahead of what the IPCC was saying we should be seeing, as per IPCC IV. A year later Hansen, et al., supported this with new research. A week or so ago another study, which I linked here, supported this strongly. Reviews of this new research are all very positive (meaning the research looks like very good science.)
You are embarrassing yourself.
Cheers
Mikael Höök
December 21, 2009
CCPO:
You are still avoiding the key issue! The reductions are very imporant but you refuse to acknowlegde that with your preaching about some mysterious unpublished version of the climate models.
Earlier I explained why clathrates are a of little importance for future energy supply. Regarding their climate impact it is something that should be integrated into the climate models, but that wont solve the issue with fundamentally flawed fossil energy production curves. Also, scientific studies show that “a release of methane from gas hydrates is just as likely to generate a microbial bloom in the ocean as global warming in the atmosphere” (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2004.04.003), so you are certainly overdramatizing once again.
No, I look at the openly available and published material that the IPCC use in their latest assessment. Those models require high amounts of fossil fuel in order to reach the extreme temperatures predicted and they have a specified climate sensitivity. You, on the other hand, refer to some divine inspiration that has allowed you to see some fantastic new version of the future climate models. If you are going to discuss the IPCC models you must stick to the things they have published and not replace it with your own faith-based speculations.
However, I agree that the climate models may be somewhat outdated, but also keep in mind that the emission scenarios that the climate models are based on is like 15 years old now. Why the IPCC have chosen to rely on such old emission scenarios is questionable at best and should be the thing that we discuss, since that is were we place out criticism.
Furthermore, your “mathematical” example is direly flawed since AGW is a projection for both climate AND society. If one is wrong so is the other. Climate sensitivity wont fix the issue with flawed fossil fuel production since climate mechanisms do not affect energy supply.
Lastly I have repeatedly referred to the IPCC and what they write. They write SPECIFICALLY that the climate models use the emission scenarios as input and that several scenarios expect like 300 Mb/d of future oil production. You can continue to pretend that you do not see this or that climate models have automagic functions that make them spit out correct predictions even if they are fed with nonsense. To other people the old rule of “garbage in – garbage out” is more appealing.
Reality is nowhere near reaching those numbers and all the IPCC projections for future fossil fuel production is unrealistic. Just take the B1 scenario family, an environmentally friendly group, as an example and read how they assume like 160 Mb/d of future oil production in 2020. Today it is soon 2010 and we are still below 85 Mb/d. The expected increase is not going to happen so that entire scenario family falls as untrue and unrealistic due to bad agreement with reality. Correspondingly real emissions will be severely less than projected by the IPCC and their climate models will be using bad input. Why is this so hard to comprehend for you?
If we are relying on the IPCC projections we are lead into a false belief that there will be no scarcity of fossil fuels. The underlying assumptions for future emissions are flawed and none of their published climate projections will be correct either. Hansen or other researcher might very well uncover new mechanisms that makes the climate more sensitive or whatever, but that do not alter the incorrectness of the emission scenarios. So instead of planning for a realistic case, which could have both peak oil and severe climate change, we are planning for a future that assumes no fossil fuel scarcity and climate change. That is the tragedy of the situation and what we criticize, eventhough you have problems to grasp this and the very difference between emission scenarios and climate models.
Faith is a poor substitute for knowledge. So how about sticking to a discussion on our criticism and avoid irrelevant ramblings about climate models (since we do not work with them). Otherwise it is just tragic to see you avoid discussion, repeat your conviction, attack the opponent and repeat your conviction again. Once again I refer to Newtons statement and sincerely ask you to correctly address the main issue, namely our critique against the emission scenarios and the flawed assumptions that are used as input in the climate models – and not the climate models themselves.
ccpo
December 22, 2009
your preaching about some mysterious unpublished version of the climate models.
Preaching? You equate science with religion. Sick.
Unpublished? I gave you the link.
Lie. Sad.
Mikael Höök
December 22, 2009
Still avoiding the key issue I see? Amusing 🙂
The IPCC climate models are published and they are also based on the assumption that future oil production will be 300 Mb/d.
Since their last assessment report there have been no new IPCC material published, so all your talk about new feedback processes and such is just purely speculative as it remains to be seen whether the IPCC will include them or not. Stick to the published material so we can talk about the same thing, instead of referring to some non-UN reports. Also your preaching about speculative future climate models that might appear in the is irrelevant here. Remember that we criticize the emission scenarios and not the climate model.
If you are going to be taken serious you must at least have the decency to stick to the topic and not avoid the key issue or my counterarguments.
ccpo
December 22, 2009
“Using sediment drilled from the ocean floor, the scientists’ reconstruction of carbon dioxide concentrations found that “a relatively small rise in CO2 levels was associated with substantial global warming 4.5 million years ago.”
They also found that the global temperature was between two and three degrees C (3.6 and 5.4 degrees F) higher than today even though carbon dioxide levels were similar to the current ones, the statement said.
“This work and other ancient climate reconstructions reveal that Earth’s climate is more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than is discussed in political circles,” said the paper’s lead author, Yale’s Mark Pagani.
“Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held CO2 concentrations at the current level,” he said in the statement.”
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-21-global-warming-hike-may-be-steeper/
One of us is being foolish, Mikael, of that you are correct. Read.
Mikael Höök
December 22, 2009
Once again. Stick to the topic. This is an energy blog and we are not discussing your speculations about how the climate works.
The IPCC have already published their models, which are based on the unrealistic emission scenarios, so lets stick to them. Your preference for non-IPCC results are of little importance here, since it wont affect the fact that the IPCC models are wrong as we claim.
Also, we had a significant drop in global temperature 450 million years ago, despite >3000 ppm CO2. 300 million years ago we had CO2 levels comparable to todays level but 10 degress warmer global temperature. During the Cretaceous Period we had increasing temperature AND dropping CO2 levels. So cherry-picking of single events in history tells nothing except your uninterest in a serious discussion and preference for logical fallacies. Furthermore, why bother with paleoclimatic discussions when the key issue is Anthropogenic Global Warming and our criticism against the IPCC?
Sven Svensson
December 22, 2009
As a sign of the zeitgeist, the discussion is quite interesting. There is many elements that resemble other heated (no pun intended) discussion in the history of science. Our knowledge is larger today, but there are a lot of things we do not know. But it is impossible for one person to know everything that is needed to understand all of science, Helmholtz was possibly the last one. So everyone has to rely on second-hand knowledge, when going outside their own area of expertise. This is to some extent obvious in this discussion.
The use of different style of discussion is especially interesting and shows that even if centuries have passed, not much changed.
ccpo
December 22, 2009
“Q What about feedbacks? A: As we put up more CO2, the oceans take up about half of it. As the world gets warmer, the ability of the ocean to buffer that reduces. Biggest concern is probably in changes in the arctic soils. Methane on the seafloor. As you go from decades to centuries, the sensitivity to CO2 goes up a little, because of these amplfying feedbacks.”
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/21/agu-richard-alley-explains-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/
Get it yet?
Mikael Höök
December 22, 2009
The feedbacks are already expressed in the IPCC models so read anything you need about them there. They include a number of feedback processes. However, they are not assuming any “magical” feedbacks and explicitly write that they need unrealistic fossil fuel production curves in order to reach 6C. Those fossil fuel production curves are not realistic and the high temperatures will, consequently, not be reached despite the IPCC feedback assumptions that are used…
Also, I just posted a link to a peer-reviewed article earlier that explained that metane seepages are just as likely to just cause algal bloom (and be consumed in the process) as they are to reach the atmosphere and affect climate.
Your posting of blog articles is pointless when there are scientific material available. Why use poor second-hand interpretations instead of peer-reviewed material? Unless the peer-reviewed article are not telling the things you want them to tell…
ccpo
December 22, 2009
“The feedbacks are already expressed in the IPCC models so read anything you need about them there.”
Wrong. Thank you for showing conclusively that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You likely believe the IPCC conducts science, too.
Mikael Höök
December 22, 2009
Just read chapter 8 of the IPCC report “Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis” where they discuss all the things you talk about and present their own view on the topic. I can even paste a link to it so you do not need to locate the report yourself: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html
The IPCC reports should be openly available for everyone to read and nicely summarize how the IPCC does their climate modelling.
If they do not include the feedbacks you want them to include is not interesting here. The IPCC have published what they have published and are not being just as planning material for the future, despite its flawed foundation.
Well, your conspiracy theories have little relevance here regardless of what one may think of the IPCC and their results… However, it does not change the fact that we state that their model results are wrong since they are based on flawed assumptions regarding future fossil fuel availability, which is the topic you have been trying to avoid over and over and over again now…
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 22, 2009
Mikael and ccpo,
While you have been discussing, I have put in some Global Energy system data into Chalmers Climate Calculator, which is easy to find on the net. My input was the carbon dioxide from available fossile fuel according to Global Energy System presentation to the Swedish Parliament. The other input I made was no further deforestation. The result is that the maximum atmospheric CO2 up to 2100 will be 470 ppm. If we assume IPCC´s present climate sensitivity, namely 3 C per doubling of CO2 concentration, the result is a temperature increase of 2.3 C. If we assume a 50 % higher climate sensitivity, which ccpo has proposed, the temperature increase will be 2.9 C.
Mikael Höök
December 27, 2009
I am rather curious on how you manage to convert our production numbers to CO2 emissions, since the emission factors can vary quite a lot from coal ranks for instance. The chalmers climate calculator I found only had emission and no energy inputs. Maybe a found another version than the one you used?
Speaking about climate sensitivity, we might also include economic feedbacks in fossil fuel production and overassessments of reserves that will reduce future production even more. So playing around with numbers is dangerous and can easily lead to arbitrary results if you assume status quo on one side and significant change on the other.
kalle
December 23, 2009
It’s simple logic that if you put flawed data into a model you will get flawed results. I can’t understand how some people can deny that.
ccpo
December 23, 2009
Also simple logic: if nobody has claimed that, your point is moot. I have said repeatedly I am not arguing the basic claim about the reserves.
To quote you, “I can’t understand how some people can deny that” since I have repeated it here many times. All you are showing is that you don’t understand what my point is.
Again, take YOUR reserves number and multiply it by 0.5. Add the result to YOUR reserve numbers. Those would be the likely correct reserve numbers **in terms of environmental effects if all are used.**
To paraphrase you, “I can’t understand how some people fail to understand that.”
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 23, 2009
ccpo,
You said: ”I have said repeatedly I am not arguing the basic claim about the reserves.”
Then you ask us to use 150 % of Global Energy System reserves to compensate for a probable higher climate sensitivity. In a comment to me on Dec 9 you said “The link I provided states that sensitivities is 30 to 50 % higher. That is the same as saying that reserves are 30-50 % higher.”
I am not an expert in climate science, but according to my knowledge the last statement is not correct. There is a big difference in the global warming if you increase the reserves by 50 % compared to an increase in the climate sensitivity by the same amount, eg from 3C to 4.5 C per CO2 doubling.
ccpo
December 24, 2009
I’m sure the numbers are slightly different depending on how you calculate them. I am offering this as a simple exercise to see that the reserve numbers are not the key. Sensitivity is.
However, I think the numbers should be essentially the same as CO2 has a defined effect on temps that is exponential. Doubling from 285 to 570 alone, with no feedbacks, would increase temps 3C. Doubling from 570 to 1140 would raise temps an additional 3C.
Thus, if the fossil fuels burned thus far raised CO2 105ppm, and that was roughly half (this is obviously wrong given the remaining tar sands, shale gas and oil, etc., but for the sake of argument we’ll say we’ve used half), then we will raise CO2 by another 105, or more, by burning the rest.
Now, if your claim is that we have used more than half and there is, say, 40% left, and we multiply that by 0.5, then we end up at the equivalent of 60% of previously assumed reserves, right?
No matter how you slice it, your lower reserve numbers do not in any way mitigate Climate Change in any meaningful way because **we are already over the safe limit, and, sensitivity is higher than previously understood.**
Those of you who misunderstand the effects on climate of PO are going to regret it, for you are quite likely to push for policies that will enhance Climate Change.
You need very much to understand ALL parts of The Perfect Storm to determine appropriate policy. Understanding only one aspect well, and the others only a little, is a losing position. The more you understand all of them the more clearly you see the connections and how inseparable they are.
Climate, economy, PO, population, exponents, chaotic signatures, non-linear systems…
Thanks for the response.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 26, 2009
Ccpo,
You said ”However, the numbers should be essentially the same as CO2 has a defined effect on temps that is exponential.”
When you claim that a 50 % increase in climate sensitivity is similar to the same increase in fossile reserves you neglect the carbon cycle, which is far from correct. In addition the effect of CO2 on the temperature is logarithmic and not exponential.
ccpo
December 27, 2009
Lars-Eric,
I am ignoring nothing. I am simplifying for to make the discussion simple, yet largely accurate.
How can burning the same amount of FFs we already have not equal the same amount of carbon, not including feedbacks? Including feedbacks makes it worse – for your argument – not better.
Then how can a 50% greater EFFECT not be equal to the 5o% more reserves?
I don’t see where there is any confusion on my side, but feel free to enlighten me.
And, yes, logarithmic, but my description and math were logarithmic, so you knew what I was talking about.
Regardless, you folks are living in climate science ancient history using research that was last up-to-date five years and more ago.
Wake up. Time is short. Advocating for PO and against AGW mitigation is suigenocide.
Good luck with that.
Cheers
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 27, 2009
Ccpo,
AGW: I have definitely not advocated against global warming. I do not myself have sufficient knowledge. In cases like this I seek advice from The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, who has an excellent home page. The have commented on the status of knowledge regarding global warming and in general support IPCC, with the exception of possible limitations in fossil reserves.
Climate sensitivity: The most recent assement report, IPCC AR4 from 2007, gives the sensitivity range of 2 – 4.5 C per CO2 doubling, but also notes that the probability of the sensitivity being outside this range is as high as 30 %. I am fully aware of the seriousness of AGW, especially if the sensitivity should be in the higher part of the range, not to talk about the 15 % probability that it is outside and above the range. Regarding temperature scenarios as a result of different sensitivities or fossile reserves, I suggest that you use the Chalmers Climate Calculator, as I have done in my previous comments, rather than trying to estimate.
http://dhcp2-pc011135.fy.chalmers.se/EXEC/0/005cy0x1iipu6y121048f1ilcc78
Global Energy Systems: As I have learned from GES and said in my earlier comments, oil is the most difficult energy source to replace and we need sufficient oil to construct new fossil free power plants to minimize global warming, to produce our food and to keep peace. Therefore I find it interesting to follow the work of GES- I am interested in food and peace and not only in global warming.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 28, 2009
cont.
In your comments above you have used a linear relationship between CO2 (plus consequential increase in atmospheric vapor) and global warming and not a logarithmic one. However this is a reasonable approximation, as we discuss increases from the present situation.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 28, 2009
Mikael,
Answer to your question on Dec 27, 2009 regarding my calculation of global warming based on GES emission scenario.
I used the Chalmers Climate Calculator 2-region model. The variables are firstly CO2 emissions for Annex I and Non-Annex I countries in percent for the years 2010, 2050 and 2100. The years 1990 and 2010 respectively are base years with 100 % emission and secondly one can vary the climate sensitivity and deforestation.
My input regarding emissions 2010, 2050 and 2100 were taken from the diagrams you presented to the Swedish parliament. I used the same relative increase after 2010 for both groups of countries. The production of oil, gas and coal are given in Mt or barrels in your diagrams. I transferred the mass and volumes to energy using data from “Energimyndigheten, Energiläget 2008”.
Coal 1 ton 27.2 GJ
Oil 1 m3 36.3 GJ
(Gas 1000 m3 39,8 GJ)
The corresponding CO2 emissions are
Coal 93 kgCO2/GJ
Oil 71 kgCO2/GJ
Gas 56 kgCO2/GJ
This of course is a simplification but the best I could do in a limited time, you can probably do much better. May I expect some better input in your paper “Validity of fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios”? I would appreciate your calculation of emissions for the years 2020,2050 and 2100.
ccpo
December 28, 2009
No, it’s 3C per *doubling*. 280 -> 560 -> 1120 -> 2240… the higher sensitivity has to do with long term effects at subsequently higher temps.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
December 28, 2009
ccpo,
Sorry, you are right.
Lars-Eric Bjerke
January 1, 2010
Mikael,
Jag gjorde ytterligare en beräkning av förväntad temperaturhöjning på grund av förbränning av kol, olja och gas med följande indata. Denna beräkning är nog bättre än den tidigare.
Enligt IPCC 2007 hade kol, gas och olja år 2005 följande andelar av jordens energiproduktion. Även koldioxidutsläppens medelvärde anges.
Kol 25 % 92 gCO2/MJ
Olja 33 % 76 gCO2/MJ
Gas 21 % 52 gCO2/MJ
Jag använde som tidigare ”Chalmers Climate Calculator 2-region model” och angav för indataåren 2020, 2050 och 2100 Global Energy Systems indata vad gäller maximal produktion av kol, olja och gas relaterat till modellens basår. Samma indata angavs för Annex och Non-Annex I länderna. Avskogningen för motsvarande år angavs till 0.
Resultat: Max CO2 halt i atmosfären år 2080 blev 510 ppm och temperaturhöjningen år 2100 blev 2,5 C fortfarande något stigande.