After rebuffing Bush twice, the Saudis are mulling over putting some slack on the leash again.
No serious moves to free us from this dependence seem to be on the horizon.
"Saudi Arabia seeks oil price curb," from AP, June 9:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Saudi Arabia will call for a summit between oil producing countries and consumer states to discuss soaring energy prices, Information and Culture Minister Iyad Madani said Monday.The kingdom will also work with OPEC to "guarantee the availability of oil supplies now and in the future," the minister said following the weekly Cabinet meeting, held in the seaport city of Jiddah.
The Saudi announcement comes just three days after the biggest single-day price leap ever, when oil surged more than $11 to surpass $139 per barrel.
Retail gas prices rose further above $4 Monday in the United States, the world's largest oil consumer, following the unprecedented price rally.
The kingdom will work to ensure there will be no "unwarranted and unnatural oil price hikes that could affect international economies, especially those of developing countries," said Madani.
"There is no justification for the current rise in prices," he said.
Thomas Petrie, a vice chairman at Merrill Lynch and an energy markets expert, said he expects oil to be in a range of $120 to $150 a barrel between now and the fall, though he acknowledged trying to pigeonhole a price point is "a bit of a pointless exercise."
"I'd be surprised if we don't end the year having reached a point where we begin to see demand patterns changing, and we start to see prices come in some from that range, but not a lot."
Demand patterns need to change indeed.
Here again is the challenge:
How to guarantee an immediate 65% drop in fuel prices right now, immediately ?
North America embark on an immediate policy of energy development enablement - for oil drilling off the continental shelves, the Arctic, the Gulf etc and the planning of nuclear facilities in various population concentrations.
Get the dumb eco terrorists and politicians out of the way and let companies go at it.
Then watch the sheiks and the Hugo Cahvezes come to heel and become tractable, and make it easier for us to defeat Iran.
An apropos word for what the Saudi royalty is doing. The pricing on oil is meant as a twofold action: providing increased funding for physical combat and forcing the United States into submitting.
IMHO what the Saudis do is window dressing. Not that putting more oil on the market will effect the price, it will but not by much.
The US, as I understand it, does not get it's oil from the middle east. It comes from Mexico, South America, Canada and within the US. There maybe a country or two I missed.
I see three things driving the speculation of this commodity. Overall world demand, lack of refineries within the US and the value of the dollar (which oil is traded in). So in one sense gas is not going up the dollar is going down relative to the commodity. Even though world currencies are not tied to gold or other material assets. People realize that commodities have value in and of themselves. That IMO is why every other commodity is up as well along with oil.
I would not be surprised if there were other motives driving the price. Many related to the subject of this board.
Get a horse!
I made a quick search for what oil productions are per barrel: http://www.kanabona.com/kanabona/?q=energy_cost_of_oil_production
I believe Saudi oil comes out of the ground for under $2 per barrel. Something is fishy in Denmark. At $136 per barrel, oil is EXPENSIVE by any standard of production...
Our economies are seriously impacted by this highway robbery, which will not help any of the 'developing' nations, Sheik oil producers included, if our economies start to fail.
Getting off of foreign oil is going to be the societal equivalent to quitting smoking: It's going to be inconvenient and stressful, and it will take persistence. But it will be for the best in the long run, and the longer we wait, the more dire the consequences will be.
Come on...kick the football Charlie Brown...
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....
Can the American citizens create a petition and get enough Americans to sign to force Congress and Senate to open up our resources?
I can see right through this. This is a ploy. Saudi Arabia will increase production and in return western governments will be required to reign in free speech with regard to reporting on islamofascism or criticizing islam. This is why Saudi Arabia held a "religious tolerance summit" just prior to making this announcement. You cannot trust Saudi Arabia! The best rule of thumb is to always ask: "What do they want in return?". Remember that nothing is free in this world.
In 50 years of computers look how far we have come.
Last 30 years of medicine incredible.
Space technology last 30 years incredible.
All industries like nano technology super conducters many other technology and we still cannot create a pure eletric self rechargeing batterie for a car i'm sorry guys this problem is not saudi oil but why we haven't gotten of oil in the first place we are putting billons into hydrogen fuel and maybe 100,000 into non fuel tech its time to wake up and put the blame where it lies we already have the technology to get off all fuel tech we our politicians oil power companies and car companies won't let this happen.
Global warming is a lie. So we start drilling in ANWR and our coastal areas and stop begging the Saudis. We have to burn a lot more coal to make a lot more electricity and move over to electric automobiles. We will still have gas and diesel vehicles but need a lot more battery powered ones
Methanol from coal is also promising as an automobile fuel
George Bush has shown gawd awful leadership on this growing national crisis
A sure fire way for anyone running for office to win: pledge to work to deport any and all illegal aliens and to open up our own oil reserves.
Can the American citizens create a petition and get enough Americans to sign to force Congress and Senate to open up our resources?
Posted by: alaskan1000
The answer is YES. Go to www.americansolutions.com and add your name to the 350,000 who are telling their representatives to "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less".
Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dahbi & Qatari wealth now far transcends oil. They have used their surplus trillions to insinuate themselves into the US economy on every level...from manufacturing to mutual funds.
It remains to be seen, but this accident of geography placing so much of the world's oil under the sands of Arabia, may just be that rare confluence of circumstances in history that helped seal the fate of the infidels and allow Islam to capture the world.
George Bush has shown gawd awful leadership on this growing national crisis
Posted by: dennisw at June 9, 2008 3:06 PM
Given Bush's history of going AWOL and market-manipulations of Arbusto and Harken, what else did Americans expect other than selling out the country to anyone with a Petro-dollar or a Peso? If it hasn't occurred to Americans, the first Gulf-war was started when rich, distant-relatives, the Saudis, were at risk and stopped after Saudis were safe. Invasion of Kuwait was at the most, a catalyst, not the objective of the war. Gulf war II, more of the same. Bush family is a business-family, using $ for votes; for more $$. So, what if tax-paying, hard-working Americans are killed or America is Islamized or North Americanized?
For clarity, connect the big dots (Bush's Record, before and after presidency) and smaller dots will connect/explain themselves....
Another case of Bush-derangement syndrome.
Cornelius
"Saudi, Kuwaiti, Abu Dahbi & Qatari wealth now far transcends oil."
You have to start somewhere. Plus those investments could just be taken if we want to. Declare them the enemy and just take them.
Oil Prices, Geopolitical Implications, and the Cost of Doing Nothing
We can produce coal based synthetic fuels for $60/barrel and keep the production jobs in North America (ie spin off wealth). The cost to our society for this fuel would be about $40/barrel, if we include the spin off benefits.
There is a huge capital cost outlay for create this coal industry, but it would collapse the price of oil. First, the Saudis would attempt to undermine the project by increasing production. Oil would drop to $50/barrel in a matter of months if the US government announced that it was establishing a coal-fuel industry. This would help re-invigorate the US economy and therefore the government could continue to subsidize the coal-fuel development by establishing a minimum price/barrel for the next 20 years. I for one would give a guarantee of $70/barrel to the coal-fuel businesses if it meant gas prices would drop by 40%.
Economically, once the coal-fuel industry was established, the cost per barrel of crude would drop due to competition. In addition, with the coal-fuel combined with Canadian oil, North America would effectively be energy self-sufficient. We could then take a much more aggressive foreign policy position in the Middle East without fears of damaging our economy. This is why OPEC would try to destroy any coal-fuel industry through dropping prices.
In the long term, we must start a Manhattan Project to find an alternative to fossil fuels. There is lots of energy from the Sun, its just a matter of figuring out how to get it. Once we get cheap energy from the Sun, we can harvest water from the air and irrigate every patch of land we want in North America. It's all doable folks. It's just a matter of leadership and will. America has shown it can rise to the occasion and its time we do something other than live with huge oil costs which are killing the average working guy.
George Bush has shown gawd awful leadership on this growing national crisis
Along with every other administration since the 1974 oil embargo.
We had the money and the technological impetus to go from theory to Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 5 years, we were able to land a man on the moon and return safely in less than ten years. We have the ability to achieve energy independence if the Government will provide the funding and the incentive.
Drill, build refineries, suspend the bouquet of special recipes in the short term, develop alternative technologies in the mid to long term. In ten years we can be self sufficient.
Worry about global warming after we are able to support and defend ourselves.
Demand patterns need to change indeed.
Posted by Robert at June 9, 2008 2:15 PM
---------------
I put BioDiesel in my New Beetle. BioDiesel runs well in just about any late model diesel engine without modifications. BioDiesel is vegetable oil which goes through a chemical process to make it suitable to run in an unmodified diesel engine.
I haven't given a dime to the Jihad for about 18 months.
If Saudi Arabia produces, manages to produce, a little more oil, the same idiots will hail this, no doubt, as a "great favor" by our "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia. These are the same people who did not, starting back in 1973, have the intelligence or common sense or political will to explain the facts of energy properly, and who, a decade later, when anthropogenic climate change was clear to the grimly farseeing, continued to dismiss it all as some kind of crazed conspiracy by left-wing scientists (yes, we all know how at MIT and Rice and CalTech the hotbed of the left is always to be found in the hard sciences, isn't it?), these people who claim to understand the market -- they like to think themselves as great believers, after all, in the "free market," when it comes to energy get all confused, and dizzy, and do not understand that we do not want the price of oil to go down. We want it to go up. But we want it to go up not so that Saudi Arabia, malevolent, dangerous Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim states, including Iran, and Libya, and a host of others not one of which is friendly to us or could be friendly to us, can get still more money. We want the price of oil to go up so that all the things that are now being reported on, so breathlessly, with such seeming surprise, about all kinds of people now deeply interested in hybrid cars, and in driving less, and even in giving up their cars altogether, and with those who have common sense recognizing why subsidies should be given to mass transit in cities, and to trains connecting cities, why those subsidies make sense.
What is happening now, in a spirit of panic -- and the panic will get worse -- might have happened slowly, over time, over several decades, as we carefully adjusted.
But we are run by colossal fools, who do not recognize that the rate of change affects the state of change (now, where in your old math clasess have you heard that before?). Changes in energy use will now have to take place, in a few years, that could have started back in 1973, 35 years ago. And this had to be done for many reasons, but two in particular.
It had to be done because there should have been a recapturing of oligopolistic rents from the OPEC states, because it is in our interests to diminish, as much as possible, and to use up, as much as possible, whatever revenues the Muslim states receive from the sale of oil and gas. Since Islam was not understood, since the immutability of its texts, and therefore of its tenets, was not understood, the meaning and menace of Islam -- and thus of the Money Weapon that sales of oil and natural gas provided -- were not understoood. Apparently, it is still not understood sufficiently, because whatever the market price of oil, there should be taxes on oil and gasoline, steadily rising, to make sure that never again can the Saudis jerk the price around, and cut off at the pass investments in other forms of energy, or in energy conservation.
There must never again be a case like that of the solasr energy pioneer Luz, that went under years ago, and now deserves to be revived.
What ever happened to GWB talking several years ago regarding exploration on the moon to bring back 'helium 3'?
He hiped it all up about how one space shuttle return with it's payload full of helium 3 could power a city (or more) for over a year.
Sorry to tell you Dorothy, but "Global Warming" is a hoax, and a stupid one (or one for the stupid)at that - and oil is the engine of freedom.
Hooray for oil and hurray for freedom.
That we buy our oil from sources other than Saudi Arabia doesn't help us one bit. Even if we bought everything from Canada or opened up our offshore areas and ANWAR to supply ourselves, there is still a world market for oil, and it only gets larger.
Another problem is oil futures. Financial markets keep betting that the price of oil will rise and they invest on that basis and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The kingdom will work to ensure there will be no "unwarranted and unnatural oil price hikes that could affect international economies, especially those of developing countries," said Madani.
This is smart business policy. The higher the price, the more incentive consumers have to develop alternative sources of energy. OPEC aims to keep us on the oil leash, for as long as possible, without driving us under. Driving oil so high that manufacturing countries are driven into recession won't help the oil market. OPEC will lose its customer base.
When the price of oil dropped to $10 a barrel, there was no incentive to develop any of the technologies we are looking for today. None of them were cost effective when compared to oil.
"Sorry to tell you Dorothy [he is responding to me], but "Global Warming" is a hoax, and a stupid one (or one for the stupid)at that - and oil is the engine of freedom.
Hooray for oil and hurray for freedom."
-- from a poster above
And Hooray for Hollywood, while we are at it.
Meanwhile, there are those who do not think, who are prepared to believe, that despite "dgene"'s deep conviction that "'Global Warming' is a hoax" it is real. And these people further recognize that such warming of the earth has happened before in the history of this planet, in all previous episodes it happened over tens or hundreds of thousands of years to cause a rise in temperature that will now take place in a century, without man, and without other species, having sufficient time to adapt.
It's a question of how fast the temperature rises, the rate of change, and not the change itself.
Go to www.realclimate.org. Read, read, read.
Why are the Chi-coms drilling 25 miles off our Gulf Coast and we can't? Environmentalists.
Why are we not building nuclear plants? Environmentalists.
Are we going to go down the drain as a society as we watch the 3rd world ascend?
A posting from last year:
"The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this global warming hysteria is so high on the charts, that our leaders want it that way so our surrender will have less blood shed. I know that's out there, but I can't understand how the world has been sold down the river on junk science, and false history of a peaceful Islam."
-- from a posting above
What you dismiss as "global warming hysteria" and "junk science" is neither. If anything, the problem has been understated. But what "I can't understand" is why anyone who has a sense of the menace of Islam would not welcome, in any case, any mass movement that enrolls tens or hundreds of millions in a campaign to limit the use of fossil fuels, which necessarily means a campaign to diminish the "money weapon" that is, at present, the main instrument of Jihad. Even if I were doubtful -- and I'm not a bit doubtful, but think that it is far worse than is being described in the popular press, where we continue to be told that there is still a "debate" going on (there is no such debate "still going on")-- I would nonetheless gratefully accept it, in order to mobilize large numbers of people who, I know, will necessarily be working against Islam and the forces of Jihad, even if they do not realize it, even if some of them are the kind of people who would naturally be collaborators with, and defenders of, Muslims and of Islam.
[Posted by: Hugh at March 26, 2007 2:22 PM]
A posting from two years ago -- the link is here athttp://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014462.php --where you can find some back-and-forth on the subject of anthropogenic climate change.
Here’s one of my postings from that very thread:
“By this time at this thread you are either pleased to find that you agree with me about this matter, or are horrified by what these postings reveal about me, when all along you had assumed I might be sane. What? He turns out to be a treehugger? An alarmist? A Kyoto-booster? Doesn't he know the hockey stick is broken? Doesn't he know that 1,000 years ago it used to be green in Greenland? Doesn't he know it is cold today in Wagga Wagga? A believer in that so-called "anthropogenic" "climate" "change"? My. One begins to wonder if I am to be trusted in my remarks about Islam if, at the same time, I actually believe all that nonsense about global warming, actually think that people working away at MIT or the National Academy of Sciences could possibly know what they are doing, when Senator Imhofe thinks quite otherwise.
Well, to madden such people even more, I will post here a very funny list prepared by Coby Beck, which offers a point-by-point rebuttal to the same dismal set of objections raised by those who deny the existence or significance of anthropogenic climate change. Unfortunately, the links at each line do not remain, have to find Coby Beck's "How To Talk to a Climate Skeptic" on-line and then click on the links offered there to find out more.
One will notice that the same 15-20 basic objections of the doubters, the contrarians, are constantly repeated, and that very repetition creates a kind of nightmarishly nonsensical poetry, but one that is also funny, and then funnier, and by the end, very funny indeed. So here goes:
Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
Stages of Denial,
Scientific Topics,
Types of Argument, and
Levels of Sophistication.
Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.
Stages of Denial
There's nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The scientists aren't even sure
Contradictory evidence
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
What about mid-century cooling?
Global warming stopped in 1998
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
No consensus
Global warming is a hoax
There is no consensus
Position statements hide debate
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
We don't know why it's happening
Models don't work
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The models don't have clouds
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Prediction is impossible
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We can't be sure
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
Hansen has been wrong before
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Climate change is natural
It happened before
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
The hockey stick is broken
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
It's part of a natural change
This is just a natural cycle
There's global warming on Mars, too
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human's
The CO2 rise is natural
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
It's not caused by CO2
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There's global warming on Mars, too
CO2 lags, not leads
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
It's the sun, stupid
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good
A warmer world will be better
The effects are minor
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
Change is normal
Climate change can't be stopped
Too late
Kyoto is ineffective
It's someone else's problem
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
Economically infeasible
Action on global warming is suicide
Scientific Topics
Temperature
There is no evidence
The temperature record is simply unreliable
One hundred years is not enough
This is just a natural cycle
A warmer world will be better
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Some sites show cooling
Atmosphere
Extreme events
Temperature records
One record year is not global warming
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Storms
Droughts
Cryosphere
Glaciers
Glaciers have always grown and receded
But the glaciers are not melting
Sea ice
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Ice sheets
Antarctic ice is growing
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
Oceans
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Modeling
Scenarios
Kyoto is ineffective
Hansen has been wrong before
Uncertainties
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
We cannot trust unproven computer models
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
The models don't have clouds
Climate forcings
Solar influences
There's global warming on Mars, too
It's the sun, stupid
Greenhouse gases
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
CO2 lags, not leads
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
What about mid-century cooling?
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Natural emissions dwarf human's
Mauna Loa is a volcano
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The US is a net CO2 sink
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Aerosols
What about mid-century cooling?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Paleo climate
Holocene
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
The hockey stick is broken
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
Ice ages
CO2 lags, not leads
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
Geologic history
A warmer world will be better
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
Scientific process
Global warming is a hoax
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
There is no consensus
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Position statements hide debate
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Types of Argument
Uninformed
There is no evidence
One record year is not global warming
One hundred years is not enough
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
A warmer world will be better
Action on global warming is suicide
There is no consensus
We cannot trust unproven computer models
Misinformed
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
Antarctic ice is growing
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human's
It's the sun, stupid
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Cherry Picking
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
Antarctic sea ice is growing
The satellites show cooling
Global warming stopped in 1998
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
The sea level in the Arctic is falling
Some sites show cooling
Urban Myths
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
Hansen has been wrong before
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
FUD
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
This is just a natural cycle
Kyoto is ineffective
There's global warming on Mars, too
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 lags, not leads
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
We can't even predict the weather next week
Chaotic systems are not predictable
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Natural emissions dwarf human's
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
The CO2 rise is natural
The hockey stick is broken
Historically, CO2 never caused temperature change
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
The scientists aren't even sure
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Observations Show Climate Sensitivity Is Not Very High
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
Non Scientific
Global warming is a hoax
Kyoto is ineffective
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The scientists aren't even sure
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Underdog Theories
Crackpottery
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
Levels of Sophistication
Silly
There is no evidence
Global warming is a hoax
One record year is not global warming
Action on global warming is suicide
There's global warming on Mars, too
Mauna Loa is a volcano
Any ice melt will just go into groundwater
The modelers won't tell us how confident they are in the models
Naive
One hundred years is not enough
Glaciers have always grown and receded
Why should the U.S. join Kyoto?
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga
CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
We can't even predict the weather next week
We can not trust unproven computer models
The satellites show cooling
Natural emissions dwarf human's
The models don't have clouds
Global warming stopped in 1998
It's the sun, stupid
If we can't understand the past, how can we understand the present?
The scientists aren't even sure
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Some sites show cooling
Specious
The temperature record is simply unreliable
Why don't they ever mention water vapor?
There is no proof that CO2 is causing global warming
This is just a natural cycle
It was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum
The medieval warm period was just as warm as today
A warmer world will be better
Kyoto is ineffective
CO2 lags, not leads
There is no consensus
Antarctic ice is growing
Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect
It was so warm 1,000 years ago, Greenland was actually green
What about mid-century cooling?
The null hypothesis says it's natural
Geological history does not support CO2's importance
Climate is always changing
Global warming started 20,000 years ago!
The CO2 rise is natural
Historically, CO2 never causes temperature change
Hansen has been wrong before
Position statements hide debate
The U.S. is a net CO2 sink
But the glaciers are not melting
If aerosols are blocking the sun, the south should warm faster
Antarctic sea ice is increasing
Consensus is collusion
They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
Peiser refuted Oreskes
Grapes used to grow in Vineland
Scientific
Water vapor's greenhouse effect overwhelms CO2
Chaotic systems are not predictable
The hockey stick is broken
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high
Sea level in the Arctic is falling
Today's warming is just a recovery from the Little Ice Age
[Posted by: Hugh at December 17, 2006 10:54 PM]
Hugh:
You drank the Kool Aid !
What a shame such a fine mind should dwell in the Slough of Despond.
Rouse yourself.
Shake off this madness.
The world is a great place and we are fortunate to dwell in one of its finest areas.
Global warming is a hoax, sponsored by Marxists, to enslave free people.
Life is not a science fiction novel nor a "Mars Attacks" Hollywood dream.
There is no such a thing as global warming.
And if there are any betting acolytes out there, please give me some odds and let me take your money. So I can more easily purchase fuel until my fellow citizens wake up and demand their fool politicians allow us to drill and build to fulfill our well deserved energy requirements.
if you believe in man made climate change, or warming.. etc. you need to follow the money. all this carbon footprints talks, credits going to and fro from company to company, to country to country, is nothing but a way for the govenments to have more control over your tax dollars, for the UN, and other unelected crooks from other substandard countries to take awawy from the working people of Western countries, A Big Money Transfer to dictatorships, and corrupts gov'ts!
Freedom, Democracy runs on oil, and until they find a new alternative we use oil. There is no shortage of oil, just stupid people running the gov't and the MSM and universities filled lunatic liberal proffs.
Hugh:
We'll make you a free man despite yourself.
First there was tarbaby Iraq which was unwinnable
(we're winning and will win)
Now there's global warming.
(a hoax if one ever heard of one - the furthest thing from science)
Hey, come over from the dark side. You're too good to leave over there.
(and we'll beat the jihadis too - because few want to be benighted like them)
Toujours la guerre.
Oh dear.
Are we not dependent on Arab oil because we thoughtlessly and selfishly consumed this finite resource squandering it on large automobiles?
Sorry, I visit this site like most people because I witness and fear the spread of radical Islam, but please don't tell me that Westerners didn't squander this resource. Accept at least a portion of the blame for the consequences. It's hardly Islam's fault that you guzzled through your own vast reserves in barely a hundred years.
They are the beneficiaries of your gluttony, not the cause of it.
melbourne man,
the problem is that groups with apparently more clout amongst the politicos have not permitted the resources we have to be utilized not that the resources have been squandered and because we can't recover the known reserves we are funding nations that are opposed to us.
Melbourneman--
Point taken. Hopefully we're all doing what we can to use less energy (there's certainly a strong economic incentive). One of my favorite factoids: 5% of U.S. energy usage goes to "vampire" appliances -- microwave/VCR clocks, "standby" lights, electronic gadgets left plugged in after they're charged, and idling computers.
Then there's stuff like turning the thermostat down a bit in the winter and up in the summer, and using CFL light bulbs. And observing the speed limit.
Any and all energy savings frees up resources (and curbing demand would help keep prices down), whether oil is being used directly or not.
Exploration and drilling takes time; a meaningful change in energy policy where national security is concerned might take even longer. But using less can happen right now.
Hugh - I'm with you on this one.
Everyone else: here are two news stories from the Australian media. They are ...interesting, when read in juxtaposition. Read them and see if you can work out how they intersect.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/29/2258722.htm?section=justin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/27/2256823.htm?section=justin
It seems, from these two stories, that although the Saudis have every intention of making as much money as they can, from oil, for as long as they can, and parleying that into the advancement of Islam, they are ALSO looking to corner any OTHER sources of energy that may be on the horizon.
It may be a very bad idea for Infidel governments to neglect the alternative energy researchers, and to allow Muslim entities to gain control of the resources that those researchers need - or of the researchers themselves.
Finally, here is something from Oriana Fallaci, The Force of Reason, p 150- 151, on a conversation she had with the then Saudi Oil Minister, Zaki Yamani, in 1975, "upon King Midas who is dying of thirst and longs to buy water:
'Thousands and thousands of years ago', he said, 'in Arabia we had rivers and lakes. Then they evaporated and today we haven't got a single river, a single lake...Believe me, since Mohammed's times here in Saudi Arabia we have depended on rain alone.
"AND DURING THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS [my emphasis added] very little rain has fallen indeed. IN THE LAST TWENTY FIVE, VIRTUALLY NONE [my emphasis added]. Clouds are drawn by vegetation, we know. Desert has no vegetation. Underground the desert some water exists, true. But very, very deep down. Deeper down than oil. And when we drill for it, we find oil...So we content ourselves with desalinated water...But desalinated water is not enough, and I would like to buy real water from the countries to which we sell oil..." He then told her of his plans to spend 140 billion dollars in Europe for five years.
The interesting point, here, is the note of desperation...the rain, even what little rain they used to get, had stopped.
On top of the classic Jihad imperative, always present, add a raging thirst.
I am not waiting for science. I have built my first hydrogen gas assist generator, which I am testing, while I build a bigger one. That's water into fuel, the concept is simple but the application is a bit tricky. Paying close attention to what you are doing pays off. I should have thought of that sooner...
I would have saved a lot on bandages...
Global warming...It is impossible that mans pollutions have no effect on the health of the planet. But are we 'causing ' GW? And does that mean we are 'causing' weather change? All those 31,000 scientists who signed the online petition don't seem to think so. I read where scientists drilled through Greenland's Ice to where they hit mud, and bought up DNA samples of forest vegetation and small animal life. This shows that prior to the ice arrival, Greenland was really green, and the temps had to be much warmer. Then I read where Greenland's ice is melting fast, and I read again where the snow is not melting off.
California where the gov is calling a drought, has had droughts before even in the last ten/twenty years. Tree ring readers have determined that California droughts have lasted as long as three hundred years in the past.
Natural cycles, we can do little about beyond being prepared. The Man made pollutions which without a doubt cause harmful effects, should be phased out and better technology applied.
Everyone can do their part, something simple even like recycling, or composting your leaves instead of burning them, buying organic...And if anyone mentions 'carbon credits', give them a swift kick to a soft spot, and send them on down the road...
Creating biodiesel from algae is promising technology. Algae can be genetically engineered to produce biodiesel, can grow in places like deserts and oceans and feed off stuff like sewage. Diesel powered cars are already making up a fair slice of new automobile sales, means all is need is the money to invest in it.
If we can do this the price of oil will nosedive and countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran be bankrupted.
There are lots of free or nearly free energy projects being worked on now.
Some of them are very interesting...Youtube has some stimulating energy videos. One of the things I like about burning hydrogen in cars is that it does not pollute, what comes out the tail pipe is oxygen and water vapor. I have read where some parts of Earth are becoming oxygen depleted. Hydrogen alone, or with gas, puts oxygen back in the air.
Good grief, just how gullible are people???
When Al Gore sells his mansions and rides a bike to work, I'll belive in AGW.
For all the Global Warming theorists supporters! First about NASA the great global warming alarmist: Truth in science eh?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
AND more here:http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/08/musings-on-satellite-temperatures/
This is what is at the above site without the charts:
GISS Land-Ocean Index dives in Jan08, exceeding drops for UAH and RSS satellite data
11 02 2008
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Land-Ocean Global temperature index data was released yesterday for the month of January, 2008. Like we’ve reported before for other datasets, including the RSS and UAH satellite temperature anomalies, GISS also had a sharp drop in January.
The GISS ΔT was -.75°C, which is larger than the satellite data from UAH ∆T of -.588°C and the RSS RSS ∆T of -.629°C
Click for larger image
The ΔT of -.75°C from January 2007 to January 2008 appears to be the largest single year to year January drop for the entire GISS data set.
This is yet one more indication of the intensity of planet-wide cooler temperatures seen in January 2008, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, which has seen record amounts of snow coverage extent as well as new record low surface temperatures in many places.
(h/t) moshpit
AND MORE!
UAH: Global Temperature Dives in May
3 06 2008
Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and delays in snow cover melting, (here and here), the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008.
It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008.
The global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C
UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.180
Compared to the May 2007 value of 0.199°C we find a 12 month ∆T is -.379°C.
But even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon “global warming signal” of the last 100 years.
Click for a larger image
Reference: UAH lower troposphere data
I’m betting that RSS (expected soon) will also be below the zero anomaly line, since it tends to agree well with UAH. HadCRUT will likely show a significant drop, I’m going to make a SWAG and say it will end up around 0.05 to -0.15°C. GISS; I’m not going to try a SWAG, as it could be anything. Of course anomalies can change to positive on the next El Nino, but this one seems to be deepening.
Update 06/05/08: Per MattN’s suggestion, changed link above for snow melt to news stories from previous link to National Snow and Ice Center
AND MORE:
SATELLITE INDICATES 23-YEAR GLOBAL COOLING
May 5, 2008
BY DENNIS T. AVERY
CHURCHVILLE VA—Now it’s not just the sunspots that predict a 23-year global cooling. The new Jason oceanographic satellite shows that 2007 was a “cool” La Nina year—but Jason also says something more important is at work: The much larger and more persistent Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has turned into its cool phase, telling us to expect moderately lower global temperatures until 2030 or so.
For the past century at least, global temperatures have tended to mirror the 20-to 30-year warmings and coolings of the north-central Pacific Ocean. We don’t know just why, but the pattern of the last century is clear: the earth warmed from about 1915 to1940, while the PDO was also warming (1925 to 46). The earth cooled from 1940 to 1975, while the PDO was cooling (1946 to 1977). The strong global warming from 1976 to 1998 was accompanied by a strong and almost-constant warming of the north-central Pacific. Ancient tree rings in Baja California and Mexico show there have been 11 such PDO shifts since 1650, averaging 23 years on length.
Researchers discovered the PDO only recently—in 1996—while searching for the reason salmon numbers had declined sharply in the Columbia River after 1977. The salmon catch record for the past 100 years gave the answer—shifting Pacific Ocean currents. The PDO favors the salmon from the Columbia for about 25 years at a time, and then the salmon from the Gulf of Alaska, but the two fisheries never thrive at the same time. Something in the PDO favors the early development of the salmon smolts from one region or the other. Other fish, such as halibut, sardines, and anchovies follow similar shifts in line with the PDO.
The PDO seems to be driven by the huge Aleutian Low in the Arctic—but we don’t know what controls the Aleutian Low. Nonetheless, 22.5-year “double sunspot cycles” have been identified in South African rainfall, Indian monsoons, Australian droughts, and rains in the United States’ far southwest as well. These cycles argue that the sun, not CO2, controls the earth’s temperatures.
Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s recent experiments at the Danish Space Research Institute seem to show that the earth’s temperatures are importantly affected by the low, wet clouds that deflect more or less solar heat back into space. The number of such clouds is affected, in turn, by more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth. The number of earthbound cosmic rays depends on the extent of the giant magnetic wind thrown out by the sun.
All of this defies the “consensus” that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration—and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.
The Jason satellite is an updated and more-accurate version of the Poseidon satellite that has been monitoring the oceans since 1992, picking up ocean wind speeds, wave heights, and sea level changes. Jason is run by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and a French team.
How many years of declining world temperature would it take now—in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998—to break up Al Gore’s “climate change consensus”?
DENNIS T. AVERY is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food Issues. (www.cgfi.org) He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 2442 or email to cgfi@hughes.net
Just in today are the May Sattelite temperatures!
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Global Temperature Falls, Again
Global Temperature Update: More Time, Please
The global temperature statistics are now out for May. They show that the month was the coolest in twenty-two years. The longer term graph previously published has now been updated. The satellite data—which of course reflects actual measurements, not computer model predictions—shows that over the past sixteen months, the change of temperature in the lower troposphere has been -0.774 degrees centigrade. This is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed “global warming signal” of the past one hundred years.
In other words, the data show that since 1998 there has been a rapid and large cooling of the earth's temperatures reversing one hundred years of global warming.
It is around about now that the protagonists of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) start to engage in caveats, qualifications, and denials. This is normal. It is the way science ordinarily proceeds in the minds of individuals and the scientific community at large. When you get some unexpected, rogue results, the first response is usually to go back and research harder and test some more.
One qualification put forward by AGW theorists is that one has to distinguish between weather and climate. Climate is long term, gradual (and often intergenerational) changes to the world's temperatures. Weather reflects shorter term impacts due to winds, ocean currents, and other cyclical influences. Thus, the caveat runs, the recent sharp decline in world temperatures reflects weather changes (shorter term cyclical influences) not climate change.
However, this begs a rather nasty question. If the decline in global temperature since 1998 is caused by weather, why would the rise in temperatures in the last quintile of the last century not also be caused by weather, rather than climate? Why would rises in temperature reflect climate influence, whereas falls reflect weather influences? At the very least, if a distinction between weather and climate is valid, far more thorough work now needs to be done to break out climate from weather influences in the data of the last fifty years. If that were done, it is likely the whole computer modeling college would need to be rebuilt.
The upshot is that the qualification distinguishing climate from weather has huge implications for AGW theories—which need to be rigorously worked through by those theorists. One hopes that the tide of strident demands for action on global warming in the face of the imminent doom of the planet would subside while that work is being done. We are not holding our breath, however.
Secondly, there are those who have argued that such recent variations and sharp drops in temperature are accommodated in the climate computer models. The models, it is argued, allow for and have factored in such variability, including such a drastic and rapid drop in temperature—where one entire century's warming is reversed by a mere sixteen months of cooling.
However, this also begs a rather nasty question. How many standard deviations from the predicted mean do the models tolerate? That is to say, how much variability is allowed? How long does the deviation from the predicted mean need to persist before the model is invalidated? Here we approach the heart of the problem. If AGW theories are to be taking seriously and accepted as having a scientific foundation (that is, be accepted as reflecting causality in the real natural world) they must be able to declare the terms and conditions under which such theories would be falsified. That is a necessary (although not sufficient) precondition of such theories being taken seriously and researched diligently.
The more temperature variability the models allow for and tolerate, the less open they are to falsification. The longer substantial deviations from the projected temperature mean can be tolerated, the more the models appear to be tautologies.
If we were to say that it is absolutely certain the sun will either rise tomorrow or it will not, no-one could challenge us. But clearly, by the same token, we can be dismissed as irrelevant, for we have not added one jot to human knowledge. The prediction, because it covers all possible permutations, is true by definition, but utterly useless. On the other hand, it matters a great deal whether the sun actually does rise tomorrow or it does not. There would be radically different effects and consequences. It is very important to know which is going to occur.
Similarly with climate change predictive models. If the models, say, have been constructed so as to accommodate fifty years of radically cooling global temperatures, we can confidently say that they will never be falsified; they would be true by definition—but utterly useless. Meanwhile, living conditions will alter radically if indeed we do get fifty years of global cooling.
It is important, therefore, to know whether the radical cooling of global temperatures in the last sixteen months, and the cooling trend evident from 1998, can be tolerated by the models—and for how long. Meanwhile our judgment on the models needs to be, at the very least, suspended—and all programmes based on them halted—immediately.
Meanwhile, we need to start thinking about the implications arising from global cooling. As has been pointed out, cooling is potentially far more devastating and threatening to human life than warming, just as starvation is far more threatening to humanity than running out of oil. (Not that we need big centralist government programmes and initiatives, mind. They, with all the best intent in the world, always end up either making the problem worse, or causing problems of far greater magnitude elsewhere. The wretched testimony of biofuel mania is sufficient evidence.)
It would be ironic, would it not, if the whole world were to run full tilt at counteracting the threat of imaginary global warming, while all the time cooling is the greater and real threat we face. The devastation arising from such folly would be catastrophic indeed. But not unexpected. It is a well declared principle of divine providence for the Lord to allow people, cultures, and nations to reap the fruits of their folly, hubris, and madness.
The upshot: APG protagonists and theorists have far more work to do testing and verifying their science before one more dollar is spent or one more programme initiated to combat global warming. Just as the UN has now called for a moratorium on all biofuel investment and a removal of all subsidies for biofuels (which will kill the pseudo business stone dead), we now need to see it call for a moratorium on all anti-global warming programmes, initiatives, institutions, and activity until further notice.
The threats and dangers humanity faces under potential significantly colder temperatures are too great to allow policies and programmes formulated upon such poorly constructed and inadequately established theories of global warming to continue. Robust, contestable scientific proof and substantiation is now required.
Fire the policy analysts. They have been terribly premature. Let the real scientific effort begin. Advocacy and alarmism need to give way to thoroughgoing research, testing and analysis.
Posted by John Tertullian and Contra Celsum at 10:02
OOPS forgot the link to the above post.
http://jtcontracelsum.blogspot.com/2008/06/global-temperature-falls-again.html
Then there is the whole issue of the gulf stream that warms Britain and the north sea area will diminish and shut off within ten/twenty years.
The worst case, year around Labrador temps 30-. The snow never really melts off, nothing will grow, people are forced to move...south, North Africa and the MI will become the most valuable land on Earth.
The temps will lower, rain will increase and the deserts will become the breadbaskets of the world...and all that oil too. But the resident populations will have to move over for this mass migration.
The encroaching ice will stop at Portugal, According to scientists,(British Royal Academy of Science, I believe) there is agreement on this unless something alters the event. Is this ice age phenomena, if it happens, the result of global warming, or just a
natural event we didn't expect?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/of-buckets-and-blogs/#more-569
From a posting at the www.realclimate.org website to which a link is given just above, quoting a Russian scientist:
“People claim that there is not enough evidence to act. I say there is not enough time.”
It is well known that the most vocal Climage Change deniers are funded by Exxon. Talk about Conflict of Interests...
http://www.desmogblog.com/is-exxon-backing-away-from-climate-change-deniers
And even if there were no Climate Change, the use of oil would still have a very large negative impact on the envrionment through air pollution and so on.
We don't need no stinking carbon credits, but we do need clean water, air, and soil to grow vegies.
But most of all, we need applied intelligence with no profit motivation. Profit motivation is the culprit behind nearly all pollutions.
And it is behind the Gore style of global warming.
Gross materialism is behind the idea that, 'I need all I can get, rather than 'I can get all I need'.
'Get all you want' is what is threatening the planet outside of nature, because a wanter's list is endless, and it is left for the planet to weaken itself providing material goods. 'I need all I can get', is selfish, unintelligent and can lead to criminal behavior. It also makes for a sick planet.
There are ways to 'fix' that, but we better get on the stick...
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They use it against us; why can't we endorse alternative energy sources and let them fight each other?
We need to stand united against this threat (or promise) of sharia law being imposed on us as hostages to OPEC. First in Europe and slowly spreading across the pond. Seeing China of the coast of Florida is outrageous. Pretty soon they'll be the top oil producer...