1veedo

jackson33 you claim that understanding peak oil requires a firm knowledge of facts that are not yet known. My question: what is it that cannot be known ahead of time that is relevant to understanding peak oil? Please explain why every oil well,field,region,and almost every country on the face of the planet from all different economic conditions, political atmospheres, and technology has produced historically along a linear equation defined by, P/Q = -(b/Qtotal)Q + b, where P is production, Q is cumulative production, and the X intersect of the line is Qtotal. Which is easily solved for years per billion barrels, 1/P = 1/(b + ((Q-Q^2)/Qtotal) (the bell curve) And Qtotal under data that can be known ahead of time, Qtotal = -bQ/(P/Q-b)

The IPCC Feb 2007 report, Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis has a neat little graph showing where rainfall increases and decreases:

This reminds me of the old "God of the Gaps" argument. The basic tactic is probably as old as time itself. Recently holocaust and evolution deniers have been using it, and Big Tobacco used this tactic as it's primary line of defense against the increasingly clear science that smoking is bad for you. The idea is to make things seem more uncertain then they actually are. Yes, there are uncertainties, but this doesn't change what we do know. What we do happen to know is that the solar contribution to global warming before 1950 is somewhere between 16% and 36%. We don't know exactly where, but this is our uncertainty range. And I guess you could argue that it's a rather large range, but no matter where the "actual" value is, even if it's up there w/ 36%, it doesn't change the fact that humans have caused the majority of warming. This before 1950 stuff isn't even that relevant because most of the warming has occurred after 1950, and during this time we know that human activities caused over 90% of the increase in temperature.

This actually goes together. Physically after the peak, it becomes harder and harder to pump oil and thus more expensive. Eventually there comes a point where it's no longer economical to extract any more oil from the well. So you're right in saying that it is a matter of economic efficiency, but what dictates the return on investment in a well is basic geology. No, wells never (or rarely, I wouldn't think) run completely dry. They leave the expensive oil there if it's not profitable. There is a difference between an opinion and a fact, as CPL.Luke pointed out. What we have here is a fact, not an opinion. An opinion is something like, "I like scienceforums.net." A fact is something like, "In 1971 the US produced more oil then it did in any other year." Btw peak doesn't happen for absolutely everything. It does happen for most things, and I can't give you specifics (although at one time I thought coal was one, and may still be), but there's a little section about it in Beyond Oil: A View From Hubert's Peak. Also, the US isn't the only country that has ever peaked. So while you're bickering about the US peak, this is really unimportant if you consider everyone else that has peaked. But if you want to talk about the peak itself, after the 1970s when all this stuff calmed down, the US never reached the same production capacity ever again, as evident by the fact that US production is still decreasing. The peak year is the year that a country/well/whatever has the highest production rate, and for the US, this happens to be 1971, even if maybe there were some other factors besides just physical factors that led to this (and as I've posted before, the historical peak year is always before the mathematical peak year).

Again you have absolutely no reference for how much ground has been left unexplored. All you're doing is posting a little pie chart of what makes up the surface of this planet, which is btw a red herring. You have not, however, posted any data from any reputable sources that tell how much of the Earth's surface has been searched for oil (and of this how much is drillable, cause we cant drill just anywhere. You have to remember that the hard-to-reach areas of the planet are left last, while the easy-to-reach areas are searched/drilled first). Do you not realize that every square foot of America, and the majority of other countries for the matter, have been searched for oil? You can fly planes with certain equipment that can find oil. They do not pick up everything, but they find a good bit of it. For the other fields, you have to drive a truck along and stop periodically to take measurements. It's even easier to find oil in the ocean then it is on land. It's more expensive, of course, but it is a fast process. What's most expensive is actually setting up the drilling rig -- discovery is really pretty simple. You dont seem to understand a basic principle of geology which is that on a matter-of-fact basis, conventional oil will peak. I don't know why you're trying to debate this, because this is like debating against any other principle of science. As I've pointed out above, and I don't want to repeat myself but sense you didn't read the thread, what's up for debate is more along the lines of whether or not we can use shell/tar, hydrogen, and when the peak is going to happen.

Have you ever read about the Paleocene-Eocene Maximum? This is the period of time that mammals started to out-compete other animals for dominance. We had a sudden, partially unexplained, increase in CO2 and temperature which caused many species to go extinct, globally (including fish living miles under the ocean). The increased CO2 caused an increase in ocean acidity which is what's responsible for the extinction of a lot of fish. This is something that is perfectly normal in geological history so contrary to your concerns, there is really nothing wrong with that passage from the IPCC.

If a president ever makes that speak, I know of a few stocks I'd like to short sell Actually, if peak oil ever makes the news within the next couple years, you could easily make a lot of money.

This was not a source from Hubert. This was a source from Kenneth Deffeyes who has a PHD in geology and worked in the petroleum industry almost his entire life. Today he teaches at Princeton University, and is a very respectable authority in this field (I think he might be retired now though). Furthermore, it is not his opinion, but is based on other data itself. jackson33 just doesn't understand the concept that you cannot make up random numbers through any method, but you have to provide references. He has absolutely no proof that the majority of the planet still has undiscovered oil -- all I am asking for is a reference. Let me make something clear again. Peak oil is real. It is taught in geology 101 and is used everyday within the field itself -- you cannot be hired by an oil drilling company as a petroleum engineer if you do not understand peak oil, because you would be cutting into their profits. What is up for debate is whether or not the peak of global "conventional" oil is really a that bad of a thing. Do we have enough shell or tar sands? Can we convert coal? Can we convert to hydrogen? And then maybe, when will the actual peak be? One interesting point is that when America peaked, we drastically reduced oil consumption, so this might happen again when the world peaks. To be honest I don't even have an opinion about a lot of these questions. It's probably not going to be a good thing, but you just never know what's going to happen. We could turn everything around, I just think this is highly unlikely. The only thing that we do know, and we know this on a matter-of-fact basis, is that the peak of conventional oil will happen. And I would argue that we should probably do something about this (especially sense I live in the US!). Btw your little reference is a straw man because peak oil does not mean we "run out of oil" per say. The United States did peak as an oil producing nation. This is a fact. The old reserves still being underground that you were talking about early, which honestly is the only valid argument you've ever had, might explain the fact that the US produces slightly more oil today then is predicted by just the mathematics. We're only talking about a small margin here though, and still right in line with the science is the fact that we have never surpassed peak production levels -- production levels have done nothing but decrease sense the peak in the US. This is echoed in the north sea, in Russia... in any country today that has already passed their peak.

Ok, Psychology 101. Basic stuff. It's called confirmation bias -- that's a test question. If you took a class in psychology you'd already be one step ahead of the game.

Not to be rude but you're just pulling these numbers out of your ass. I asked for a reference (and I don't mean a reference for land/sea area, I want a reference talking about areas of the planet which are feasible drilling locations that have not yet been searched). Unless you can come up with one then your argument that the majority of the planet has not been searched is incorrect. According to Beyond Oil: A View From Hubert's Peak, we have already drilled about half of the total recoverable oil on this planet, and have already found the majority of it.

Hey, gnome is sexy! (lol and as I'm posting this I'm running KDE) btw you do know you can just copy+past, or simply reload the page when you get the "this free host is awesome" page? plac.php0h.com/Graphics/desktop.png

It's actually very easy to find oil in the oceans. Instead of driving a truck around in the desert, setting up equipment every few miles, and gathering data, a boat can just float around and find any oil that can be drilled. And you get these "facts" from where exactly?

I still remember reading in Deffey's first book a prediction for peak oil in Norway in 2001. The book was written before the peak, and I was reading it after the peak, so it was pretty cool when I discovered that the prediction was correct. It was sort of a side-note too and wasn't expressed as if it were any big deal. "Yeah, the North Sea is about to peak...The middle east is the largest region that has not yet peaked..." (not an actual quote, I checked it out of the library so I don't have it anymore) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norway_Hubbert.svg I'm pretty sure they've add to this graph every year. I first saw it in 2004 when the latest date graphed was 2003 and 2004-2006 are on there now.

I think it has more to do with skepticism's role in science. All scientists are naturally skeptics, it works kind of like natural selection: only the good ideas make through the scrutiny of peer-review.

Peak oil does not say that there will be no more major oil discoveries. All it says is that cumulatively, oil discovery will decrease. And sense 1965, oil discoveries have gone nowhere but down, despite recent discoveries. Production does not follow discovery linearly, but discovery is a good indicator for what's going to happen in the future. Right now we're using 3 barrels of oil for every discovered barrel. I think you might be interested in a little principle known as Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor basically says that we should keep things as simple as possible -- the best solution out of two equal solutions is the one that is simplest. Peak oil basically says that our ability to produce more oil is dependent on the unproduced portion. This has of course been true for the entire history of oil production on this planet, and I see no reason that it should cease to be true in the future, so why should we create a more complex model? Peak oil has accurately described oil production through unexpected increases in oil reserves, better technology, and even a great depression without the need to alter the model in the slightest. None of these "external" or "unexpected" influences changed the reality of peak oil. When people talk about mitigating peak oil, they usually look to new technologies or potential oil producing regions that aren't currently considered (eg the antarctic/arctic). But all things considered, if we follow the very well established principles of peak oil, none of this should matter. And history has proven this to be true over and over again. So if none of this has ever mattered in the past, why should it matter in the future? Btw, you don't bury a hatchet because it can dull the blade. Either sheath it or split it into wood (but not a live tree!).

The facts really do speak for themselves, and PeakOilMan has done a great job explaining what exactly these facts tell us. I have never seen any counter evidence against PeakOilMan's claims; I really think the only thing I've ever seen as a counter point is "no, you're wrong." For instance when people posted stuff about tar sands, he brought up the appropriate data that shows it isn't going to effect the reality of a peak. And how did these posters respond? "No, I still think tar sands will effect peak oil. I don't care about all of the evidence that you provided that shows my statements are incorrect, I'm just going to ignore every word you posted." So where are your references that say peak oil wont happen? Last time I checked, Hubert's peak was being taught by every university in geology 101. The mathematics behind it have been shown to be correct many times and they are used everyday within the field itself*. You cannot extract oil from the ground without understanding peak oil*. * See for instance Beyond Oil: A View From Hubbert's Peak.

Well I don't know about any of your post' date=' I'm just responding to this because it seems to be a point that most people don't understand. [u']Theories do not turn into laws. Ever. Don't even ask.[/u] A law of nature is something that is observed to happen. We observe that the sun rises every day, and we can provide some mathematics that tell us a time and everything else. This is a law. It was never a theory, all it has ever been is an observation. Theories tend to explain laws. They tell us the why (maybe not the same type of "why" you're referring to -- as a purpose, but you know what I mean). A theory about the sun rising is that the sun orbits our planet. This is nice and all, and it agrees with observations, but it makes a prediction -- that the sun would be the same size year round. This has of course been found to be incorrect and you can actually do this experiment yourself -- take a picture of the sun from the same place at noon (don't look at it!) every month for a year, and you'll notice that it grows and shrinks. Now either two things are happening: the sun is actually growing and shrinking, or the theory is incorrect for some reason. If the sun is growing larger/smaller, we would be able to feel that the sun is emitting more/less radiation, and this is not the case. So another theory is that we orbit the sun (in an ellipse, but of course it's not precisely an ellipse, the path changes over thousands of years) and of course we all know that every prediction about this theory has been found to be true. The theory that we orbit the sun will never be "elevated" to the status of law because it's so self-intuative or whatever. It will always be a theory, never a law. End of story. We find the same thing with gravity. Unlike what you're saying, there is a difference between the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. The law of gravity is that things fall, and the theory is that matter attracts itself, and this goes along with a couple math equations. The theory of gravity was never turned into a law. Of course now we have relativity, which is an alternative theory of gravity, and it basically does the same thing the theory of gravity did -- explain the law of gravity. It did not overthrow the law of gravity. The law of gravity has always been the law of gravity and theory of gravity has always been the theory of gravity Evolution is the same way. You'd probably be surprised to find out that there is a law of evolution. The law of evolution is that the frequency of different alleles in a population's gene pool changes over time (ie, things evolve). This has simply been observed and is a fact: we can see it happening in labs and we see it happening in the fossil records. The theory of evolution basically says that allele frequencies change over time because organisms undergo genetic change and experience differential reproductive success due natural selection. The theory of evolution is very successful, for instance we use it every year to figure out which flu virus will be most predominant so we can efficiently send out flu vaccinations to different regions of the world. I always found it funny because it's not the theory of evolution that people have problems with (and at the same time people always use the argument, "evolution is only a theory"). The problem that people have with evolution is the law, or the observed fact that species evolve over time. Btw the theory of punctual equilibrium has not replaced gradualism. It is still believed that gradualism can and does occur. Biologists have moved past the either or debate -- either punctuated equilibrium or gradualism, to the position that it's probably both. Punctuated equilibrium, however, is the dominant species-changing force throughout most of evolutionary history. The alligator/crocodile is an example of gradualism, not punctuated equilibrium, guiding evolution. This recent discovery is an example of punctuated equilibrium at work.

Here you go again with those red herrings. It is true that most studies show a correlation between 1900 and 1976, and even at that for pretty much the entire history of our planet, but your study used some data retrieved very strangely after 1976 to make it look like solar irradiance was increasing after 1976, while other studies show just the opposite. Most studies do not agree with the one that you posted. They only agree with it up to 1976. According to this page, for instance, the entire period from 1978 to today has seen no increase in solar irradiance at all. This study shows the same thing: And another statement directly agrees with a study I linked to above, "...but there has not been any net change in solar output since 1978 when most of the 20th century warming occurred." I've seen enough of these sorts of graphs to know what the norm looks like. Even if your study wasn't found to be incorrect in peer-review, it shouldn't change what every other study has found. We're not talking about one or two odd studies here; there is a lot of research in this field, and they all pretty much agree with each other (except yours, SkepticLance). Naturally, different studies are going to show slightly different results. And you can also "fudge" it up to look differently without changing the data. For instance, I graphed one of the studies from here in openoffice and you can hardly tell the temperature increase. http://1veedo.homelinux.com/misc/Screenshot.png (I brought this up on wikipedia talk) This is consistent with a graph of the same data found on a global warming denier website. http://www.john-daly.com/nasa.gif The wikipedia graph appears to show a much greater increase, imo, mostly because of the line they draw through it. I figure most studies do this to illustrate their point. The wikipedia graph talks about global warming and the denier's graph talks about how global warming is false. But just a quick google for the study in question finds some information showing that it's incorrect. Particularly Damon, but here's a nice little summary of what scientists have found out about this study, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=11&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.environmentaldefense.org%2Fdocuments%2F5544_SolarActivity_One-pager.pdf&ei=RIP4RZTKBYiIgAT4jPHPBw&usg=__qWrMFyB7EwNF1311SYKP7kNOwjw=&sig2=nIJ-dRxce5ojkCfrffcBBg "In 1991, a Science paper reported a remarkable correlation between solar activity and temperatures, prompting speculation that solar activity was causing global warming. 1 While the paper understandably received a great deal of attention at the time, and is sometimes cited today, its conclusions are flawed.2 The original 1991 analysis compared temperature data to records of sunspot cycle length (a proxy for solar output). However, the sunspot data used in the analysis were not uniform—some were filtered to smooth out temporal variations and others were not. Subsequent analyses (by these same authors) attempted to address the filtering issue but were plagued by mathematical errors. When the analysis was repeated without these errors, the relationship between solar activity and temperature fell apart." If you look at the paper I linked to, it conveniently shows what happens when the "questionable" (what I referred to as dishonest) data points are fixed. When your study is "fixed," it actually agrees with the rest of the scientific community, which destroys the entire thesis of the paper. Well at the same time, so did CO2 emissions -- they increase right along with the temperature. But this really doesn't matter. I have provided references to support my position. You cannot change the fact, no matter what you say, that only 16% to 36% of the total increase in temperature from 1900 to 1950 was caused by changes in solar irradiance. For some reason you absolutely refuse to accept the data, but you cannot tip toe around this with red herrings. "A denier refuses to accept data." What is it, exactly, that you vehemently claim you are not, SkepticLance?

WIkipedia has information about this. Temperature estimates from that long ago rely on carbon/oxygen/atmospheric gas concentration levels found in fossils. There are other indicators for temperature, such as ocean salinity and whatnot, but I think it's funny cause most of the information about historical temperature levels for this planet come from fossils dug up in my own state (Appalachian mountains). We're also the worlds largest exporter gensing, and we burn a lot of coal, but that's about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

You've posted this before, and someone else posted it even before you, and both times I pointed out that the study is flawed and has been found to be incorrect in peer-review. More specifically, the authors of the study actually used some dishonest methods to come up with the data. You can take a look back at post 84/87 and then 148 to help you remember a little bit. We are not saying it had nothing to do with the sun, but the data clearly shows that the largest factor for the cooling was increased particulate pollution. Not according to satellite and ground temperature records. The 1.6 figure you like to quote is just about the lowest figure that has been found while the vast majority of temperature readings vary right around .2, and these are the most accurate as well. Also I'm wondering about the 1.6 figure because the only study that shows 1.6 is giving a figure for tropospheric temperature increase, not ground temperatures. But aside from the data itself, every other secondary study about climate change uses .2, "almost .2," and "slightly more then .2" per decade. This includes the IPCC, NASA, the NAS, as well as the EPA. So even if we look at all the different temperature readings, the experts themselves see a temperature increase of .2C per decade most accurate.

Out of the total temperature increase of almost (or more then) 1 degree sense 1900, the sun could have, at most, contributed 36% to the less then .3~.4 degree rise between 1900 and 1950. After 1950, the sun's influence has diminished significantly and contributes an entire order of magnitude less then human activities. We're talking after 1950, more then 90% of the increase in temperature was caused by humans, and this is also the period when most of the warming has taken place (specifically after 1976 w/ .2C per decade increase in temperature). But this isn't anything profesional, it just servs to illistrate exactly what we're talking about. But don't ask me; ask the scientists themselves: From wikipeda, "The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame." "In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [10], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus." The exact portion caused by solar and human influences isn't known but scientists are sure beyond any shadow of doubt that whatever the exact portions are, human influences are significantly higher then natural factors. It's called a scientific consensus -- I still don't see why you have such a hard time understanding this. Wow I've explained this to you before, a couple times actually, and maybe you forgot or didn't understand, but that's ok because we're here to learn. It turns out that CO2 very strongly correlates with temperature for the entire period between 1900 and today, while solar irradiance only correlates to roughly 1976. You might be interested in reading the Stott et all sutdy, "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?" from Journal of Climate, vol. 16, p. 4079-4093. According to this paper, even the period between 1900 and 1950 where the temperature most appears to correlate with solar activity visually, only 16% to 36% of the total warming was actually caused by the increase in solar activity. The rest was caused by greenhouse gases emitted by humans. You seem to be insinuating that the warming/cooling before 1976 correlates more closely to solar activity but the data clearly shows that greenhouse gases have been the primary driver of global warming sense at least 1900, regardless of what it looks like visually. http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig2-CO2-Temp.jpg And even visually, as above, you can clearly see how closely CO2 and temperature correlate. It is a much better correlation then solar activity. Not that it really matters though, because like I said scientists are certain that the majority of warming has been caused by human activity.

Global warming is one of the most well-understood natural phenomenons on the face of the planet. We know more about the climate then we do many other areas of science. It is also one of the oldest fields of science, going back before relativity and quantum mechanics. Climate science is just as sound as evolution or any other field of science. I think it's funny that the three most disputed areas of science, outside of science itself, are actually three of the most well-supported and agreed upon areas of science: global warming, evolution, and the big bang. All three are extraordinarily well supported by both the evidence and the scientists themselves yet people seem to have problems with them. Science editor-in-cheif Donald Kennedy even observed, "Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science." ("An unfortunate U-turn on carbon," Science, vol. 291, p. 2515.) If you want to attack science, attack it at a weak place. The Creationists wedge tactic would have worked much better had they picked something like string theory instead of evolution.

We are sure.

Lol the sun has been getting "cooler" (we've been getting further away) for around 8k years and people are always like, "Global warming? Maybe it's the sun!" That's almost as funny as the people who claim that the ocean is giving off CO2 when it's actually the largest CO2 sink on the face of the planet. Wait, I take that back. What's even more funny is the people who think global warming is a big conspiracy ran by socialist illuminate to take over the world. Btw for anybody who has doubts, what makes you think that you know better then the entire scientific community? You think out of all the thousands of scientists from around the planet who research the climate that you have found some sort of hole that everyone else has missed? Unless you publish some peer-review, I'm not impressed by any of your "global warming is wrong because..." arguments.