Bloomberg/Westly was trying to explain something to the public, and got it horribly garbled. You posted it as something good. They deserve my criticism. At least you (hopefully) won't go around saying “In the future, people will talk about energy in terms of kilowatts per hour instead of oil per barrels.”
You don't believe in Peak Oil, I do. That's called a disagreement. It doesn't give you the right to disparage me without pointing out the errors in Peak Oil, which you have never done and cannot do because it is real. The only person that is weakened by this error is YOU.
Conservancy is not effective, it is being steam-rollered into the ground by big business, as shown by your "biodiversity problems still outstanding" image. "calling a halt to development isn’t an option." is where they go wrong, and when dealing with "governments and corporations to farmers and indigenous communities" with that attitude, they will always lose.
"Horribly garbled"? My, what ridiculous hyperbole. I understood what he was saying just fine, thank you. YOU were the one claiming a news item for the public should follow thermodynamic energy measurement rigor. That's really grasping at straws, Palloy. 👎 Stop with the Kwh thing. Anybody knows what that is all about. It just bends you out of shape to read any article that says oil is going to be replaced by renewably sourced energy from batteries, so you start a hair splitting hyperbole campaign. Same on you!
And BY THE WAY, you CAN use up X number of Kilowatts in a given second, minute or hour, AS YOU KNOW, but the Kwh measure is what they use to bill you for the electricity, so stop playing silly games with nomenclature!
And now you are attacking The Nature Conservancy and their Chief Scientist mathematician too?
You just canot take correction gracefully, can you?
And as to Peak Oil, I HAVE pointed out the MANY errors in peak oil, over and over. You just keep ignoring them! HERE are some of the most recent examples:
by Marianna Parraga (Reuters) – Mexico’s state-run Pemex [PEMX.UL] might bring partners into two heavy crude oilfields in the Gulf’s shallow waters, the company’s chief said on Tuesday, move that could help ease a lack of heavy barrels in the Atlantic basin.
After nine bidding rounds in just three years and a presidential election scheduled in July, Mexico’s oil regulator has started a campaign to convince Pemex and foreign investors that this is the moment to develop much needed extra-heavy oil reserves.
“We are looking to increase production, including heavy crude, so we might put on the table some farmouts mainly for those fields that need secondary recovery strategies,” Pemex’s CEO Carlos Trevino said during a news conference during the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston.
Dominican Republic to Join Caribbean Energy 🦖 Exploration Rush
By Bloomberg on Mar 06, 2018 04:11 pm
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 03/06/18 08:42 AM EST
Trump touts report US is set to become world’s top oil producer
President Trump on Tuesday celebrated a report from the International Energy Agency which claims the U.S. will become the world's leading oil producer by 2023.
AND HERE is the article that SHOULD have put to rest in your mind any idea that peak oil will save us from Catastrophic Climate Change:"Peak Oil will save us from Climate Change:" a meme that never went viral
By Ugo Bardi
Thursday, October 8, 2015
The idea that peak oil will save us from climate change has been occasionally popping up in the debate, but it never really gained traction for a number of good reasons. One is that, in many cases, the proponents were also climate science deniers and that made them scarcely credible. Indeed, if climate change does not exist (or if it is not caused by human activities), then how is it that you are telling us that peak oil will save us from it? Add to this that many hard line climate science deniers are also peak oil deniers (since, as well known, both concepts are part of the great conspiracy), then, it is no surprise that the meme of "peak oil will save us" never went viral.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask the question of whether we have sufficient amounts of fossil fuel to generate a truly disastrous climate change. The debate on this point goes back to the early 2000s. At the beginning, the data were uncertain and it was correctly noted that some of the IPCC scenarios overestimated what we are likely to burn in the future. But, by now, I think the fog has cleared. It is becoming increasingly clear that fossil fuel depletion is not enough, by far, to save us from climate change.
Nevertheless,
some people still cling to the old "peak oil will save us" meme. In a recent post on "Energy Matters",
Roger Andrews 
argues that:
All of the oil and gas reserves plus about 20% of the coal reserves could be consumed without exceeding the IPCC’s trillion-tonne carbon emissions limit. 
Now, that sounds reassuring and surely many people would understand it in the sense that we shouldn't worry at all about burning oil and gas.
Unfortunately, that's just not true and Andrews' statement is both overoptimistic and misleading. One problem is that the "2 degrees limit" is a last ditch attempt to limit the damage created by climate change, but there is no certainty that staying beyond it will be enough to prevent disaster.
Then, there is a problem with Andrew's use of the term "reserves," to be understood as "proven reserves". Proven reserves include only those resources that are known to exist and to be extractable at present; and that's surely much less than all what could be extracted in the future. The parameter that takes into account also probably existing resources is called "Ultimate Recoverable Resources" or URRs
So, let's consider a world fossil URR estimate that many people would consider as "pessimistic," the one by Jean Laherrere that I already discussed in a previous post.
It turns out that we have enough oil and gas that, together, they can produce enough CO2 to reach the 2 degrees limit; even though, maybe, not more. There follows that, if we really wanted to burn all the oil and gas known to be extractable, to stay withing the limit we would need to stop burning coal - zero burning, zilch - starting from tomorrow! Not an easy thing to do, considering that coal produces more than 40% of the energy that powers the world's electrical grid and, in some countries, much more than that. It is true that coal is the dirtiest of the three fossil fuels and must be phased out faster than oil and gas, but the consumption of all three must go down together, otherwise it will be impossible to remain under the limit.
In the end, we have here one more of the many illusions that surround the climate issue; one that could be dangerous it were to spread. However, in addition to the other problems described here, Andrew's post falls into the same trap of many previous attempts: it uses the data produced by climate science to try to demonstrate its main thesis, but only after having defined climate science as "Vodoo Science." No way: this is not a meme that will go viral.
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2015/04/climate-change-can-seneca-collapse-save.htmlMr. Palloy,
The only disparaging and thoroughly offensive commenter on this forum lacking the most basic level of respect and decorum, in regard to your consistent hyperbole, hair splitting and obtuse deliberate misinterpretation of the most basic phrases in the English language is YOU. From the start, you have consistently and abusively attacked absolutely everything I have written about, from ethanol to predicted wave activity to the massive level of pollution from fossil fuels that is what is REALLY destroying human civilization. The fact that you "BELIEVE" in peak oil causing a "collapse" gives you ZERO excuse to get into high dungeon because I vigorously, and with many irrefutable data points, give you no credit for rational thinking. You think I am wrong. I know you are the one that is woefully wrong. After you accused me of being "in a panic" and being "alone" in my views on this forum, both Eddie and Jdwheeler weighed in to to support my position. Eddie give both of us equal credit, but JD made it rather clear to YOU that my argument was the most important one. YET, you did not apologize for attempting to disparage my view as some " alarmist fantasy". DON'T tell me YOU are the one being offended when you routinely dish out thoroughly demeaning and offensive remarks directed at my posts and my person.
HERE is what JD wrote to YOU, which I answered since you disappeared, so you can stick it in your peak oil pipe and SMOKE IT!
The thing to panic about is Peak Oil because its impact is just about to crash the world economy and prevent any kind of industrial reboot.
You're right about the impact of Peak Oil, but Biosphere Disruption (aka Climate Change) can cause the extinction of most complex lifeforms on Earth, so it is a far bigger problem.
Also, Peak Oil is completely unavoidable, all we can do it change the timing a little one way or the other, and brace ourselves for the impact. While Biosphere Disruption has already begun, we still have at least in theory the ability to avoid the worst effects.
Really, though, it is a false dilemma. The good solutions for Peak Oil also happen to be the good solutions for Biosphere Disruption. They just are bad for continuing a BAU consumerist lifestyle.
Thank you for your serious and well reasoned comment. I understand that you see this as six of one and half a dozen of the other, but there is a key issue here that negates the "peak oil will save us" meme as an excuse to keep buring fossi lfuels until they are all used up.
...
JD, if you haven't perused this detailed study by David Wasdell, I recommend it. It clearly shows the climate sensitivity (radiative forcing) is much higher than the low balled IPCC scenario model math.
...
http://www.apollo-gaia.org/harsh-realities-of-now.html
I see it more of a six-of-one, half-a-gross of the other situation... or in other words, a proper response to climate change will make peak oil irrelevant. As David Wasdell puts it at the end of the above article,
"It is time to say NO to the dark and toxic energy of the underworld. It is time to say YES to the pure and sustainable energy of light. Photo-dynamics can out-power, out-pace and out-resource any amount of energy we can get from fossil sources. It is time to break free from our bondage to the past. It is time to embrace the freedom of the Sun. It is time to usher in the dawn of Solar Society.
The transition from fossil dependency to solar dependency is an extraordinary shift for our species. It can be compared to the introduction of photosynthesis in the evolution of plants, which could then take solar energy to transform basic chemicals into more complex molecules. Today we are able to take solar energy and transform it directly into electricity, power, heat, and light. That provides the basis for a metamorphosis. We are not caught in the death throes of civilisation, merely the demise of an inappropriate mode of civilisation. We are experiencing the birth pangs of a new form of humanity."
Now THAT is what is called respecful posting, something I have YET to see from you. It is IRRESPONSIBLE and downright SHAMEFUL that you claimed nobody supported my views and then ignored the posts supporting my views!
Palloy, you show ZERO RESPECT for me and what I post. You NEVER give me or my posts the benefit of the doubt, but jump in to snipe and dispargage without regard to manners or decorum. You REFUSE to peruse David Wasdell's detailed and methodical study. YOU are the one who cannot deal with evidence and hard facts! Therefore it is a waste of time to engage you in any discussion. Respect is a two way street. I am NOT your verbal punching bag. When, and if, you show respect for my posts, I will reciprocate. Until then I hold you and everything you write in contempt. DO NOT POST HERE if you cannot disagree respectfully with what I write. Apologize or go away!
Home
Search
Today's Posts
Gallery
Members
Login
Register
